I     Mlarla  5tlonk 

I 

1  And  Her  Revelations  of 

I 

I  (Tonvent  (Lrimes 


2nd  EDITION 


i  l-^o^N^ 


By  THOS.  E.  WATSON 

Author  of  "The  Story  of  France,"  "Napolean,"  "Life  and 

Times  of  Andrew  Jackson,"  "Life  and  Times  of 

Thomas  Jefferson,"  "The  Rowan  Catholic 

Hierarchy,"  Etc. 


Published   by 

The  Tom  Watson  Book  Company 

Thomson,  Ga. 

1927 


MARIA  MONK 

AND  HER  REVELATIONS  OF 

CONVENT  CRIMES 

2nd  EDITION 


By  THOS.  E.  WATSON 

Author  of  "The  Story  of  France/'  "Napoleon/'  "Life  and  Times 

of  Andrew  Jackson/'  "Life  and  Times  of  Thomas 

Jefferson/'  "The  Roman  Catholic  Hierarchy/'  Etc. 


Copyrighted    by 
Georgia  Watson  Lee  Brown 
1927 


Published  by 

The   Tom   Watson    Book    Company 

Thomson,   Ga. 

1927 


RECENT  EXCAVATIONS  IN  MONTREAL,  CANADA,    HAVE    BROUGHT    TO    LIGHT    UNDER- 
GROUND CONVENT  PASSAGES  AS   MENTIONED   IN    MARIA    MONK's   BOOK 


Southern  Pamphlets 
Rare  Book  Collection 


ITldrid  ITlonk,  and  Her  Reueldlions 
of  Conuenl  Crimes 


HUMAN  nature  will  never  be  understood  by  any  human 
being:. it  baffles  us,  even  when  we  try  to  understand  our- 
selves. Those  we  know  best  are  continually  surprising  us 
by  some  act  of  which  we  thought  them  incapable,  or  by  some 
assertion   which   demolishes    our   belief    in   their    intelligence. 

Who  would  have  supposed  that  a  new  religion  could  spring 
up.  in  Western  New  York,  base  itself  upon  an  absurd  fable  about 
golden  plates  and  a  new  Bible,  and  then  grow  to  vast  power,  in 
spite  of  contempt,  ridicule,  and  persecution? 

Besides  the  19th  century  miracle  of  Mormonism,  the  manmade 
creed  of  Mohomet  is  an  easy-going  achievement,  for  the  Arab 
merchant  imposed  upon  ignorant  nomads,  while  Joseph  Smith 
and  Sidney  Rigdon  humbugged  shrewd,  hard-headed,  educated 
Americans. 

Who  could  have  supposed  that  Roman  Catholicism  would 
survive  the  Reformation,  reconquer  Germany,  regain  the  mastery 
in  Great  Britain,  and  hold  the  balance  of  power  in  the  United 
States,  while  clinging  to  the  ludicrous  dogmas  which  were  almost 
laughed  out  of  court,  at  the  Renaissance? 

Who  could  have  imagined  that  the  proudest  intellects  _  of 
modern  Europe  could  have  been  submerged  by  the  impudent  im- 
postures of  fake  miracles,  fake  relics,  fake  purgatory,  fake  tran- 
substantiation.  fake  indulgences,  and  fake  personation  of  Jesus 
Christ  ? 

A  colossal  fraud,  a  huge  anachronism,  a  standing  insult  to 
common  sense,  is  popery,  is  the  worship  of  Mary,  is  the  purga- 
torial gold-mine,  is  the  fiction  of  saints,  is  the  shameless  market 
in  which  Rome  sells  everything,  from  a  nun's  hair  to  a  golden 
crucifix  and  a  pewter  Madonna. 

But  of  all  the  successful  impositions  forced  upon  human 
credulity  by  the  most  arrogant  of  churches,  is  that  of  a  virgin 
priesthood.  Unmarried,  fuU-sexed,  ruddy  and  robust  with  fat 
living,  red  of  lip  and  thick  of  cheek,  and  dew-lapped  of  neck, 
these  portly  bachelors — thousands  of  them! — strut  up  and  down 
the  earth,  bold-eyed,  pretending  to  sexual  purity !  And  it  goes ! 
The   brazen    fraud   is   taken    for   a    verity.        Not   one    Catholic 

(3) 

589144 


layman  in  a  thousand  doubts  that  the  priest  is  a  man  of  like 
passions  as  himself,  but  he  accepts  the  fraud,  takes  the  living 
lie  as  a  necessary  evil,  considers  it  bad  form  to  notice  anything, 
and  never  opens  his  mouth,  unless  the  priest  is  so  unlucky  as  to 
get  caught  and  to  cause  "scandal." 

As  to  men  who  are  not  Catholics,  you  won't  find  one  in  a 


FRANCIS  DOYLE,  FLORIDA  PRIEST 


million  who  doubts  the  real  office  of  the  priest's  "housekeeper," 
and  the  uses  to  which  the  jailed  women  of  the  nunneries  are  put, 
willingly  or  unwillingly. 

But  when  some  individual  case  challenges  the  world's  atten- 
tion, when  some  nun  breaks  jail  and  cries  piteously  for  help 
and  protection,  tJicn,  indeed,  all  the  Roman  cohorts  get  into  in- 
stant action,  and  the  non-Catholics  are  but  too  apt  to  aid  the 


priests  in  capturing  the  fugitive  and  taking  her  back  to  the  papal 
Bastille. 

In  the  olden  days,  there  was  no  such  thing  as  "the  escaped 
nun" — why  not  ?  Because,  the  civil  power  was  wielded  by  staunch 
Catholics,  and  these  were  compelled  by  the  law  of  the  Roman 
church  to  return  all  such  run-aways  to  the  Convent.  The  penalty 
for  failure  to  do  this,  was  excommunication,  which  at  that  time 
was  well  nigh  the  same  as  death. 

But  what  were  the  real  conditions  of  nunneries  from  the 
very  beginning?  As  everybody  knows,  the  apostles  were  mostly 
married  men^  the  primitive  elders  and  presbyters  had  wives: 
and  bishops  of  Rome  were  married  men.  during  the  earlier 
centuries  after  Christ.  It  was  not  until  nearly  1100  years  had 
passed  away,  that  Pope  Gregory  VII.  energetically  attempted 
to  enforce  celibacy  upon  the  priesthood;  and  at  least  300  years 
more  went  by,  before  its  general  adoption  in  the  Catholic  world. 
As  late  as  the  year  1320,  the  Irish  priests  continued  to  take  wives; 
and  the  Spanish  priests  were  in  full  practice,  on  the  same  line, 
in  1335. 

Consequently,  the  thick-lipped,  red-faced,  rotund  and  lusty 
Roman  male-Virgin,  is  a  comparatively  modern  impostor. 

(See  Lea:  Historv  Sacerdotal  Celibacy,  Vol.  1,  pages  365 
and  383.) 

Let  us  briefly  examine  the  mode  of  life  which  resulted  from 
the  unnatural  system  of  confining  nuns,  in  the  custody  of  un- 
married priests. 

A  Catholic  author  writes,  "Alas,  also,  how  many  priests  in 
their  convents  have  established  a  sort  of  infamous  gymnasium, 
where  they  exercise  the  most  abominable  debaucheries."  De 
Planctus  Ecclesire,  Vol.  11.  2. 

Tertullian  wrote  that  the  reputation  of  priests  for  virginity, 
covered  secret  sins  "the  effect  of  which  were  concealed  by  resort 
to  infanticide." 

(Tertull.  de  Virgin.  Veland.  C.  XV.) 

Cyprian's  testimony  against  the  male  "virgins"  was  equally 
sctrong. 

Says  Dr.   Lea.   Vol.    1,  pages  423   and  244: 

"When  the  desires  of  man  are  once  tempted  to  seek,  through 
unlawful  means,  the  relief  denied  to  them  by  artificial  rules,  it 
is  not  easy  to  control  the  unbridled  passions  which  irritated  by  the 
fruitless  attempts  at  repression,  are  no  longer  restrained  by  a  law 
which  has  been  broken. 

The  records  of  the  Middle  Ages  are  accordingly  full  of  the 
evidences  that  indiscriminate  license  of  the  zvorst  kind,  prevailed 
throughout  every  rank  of  the  hierarchy. 

Scarcely  had  the  efforts  of  Nicholas  and  Gregory  put  an  end 


to  sacerdotal  marriage  in  Rome  when  the  morals  of  the  Roman 
clergy  became  a  disgrace  to  Christendom." 

In  1130,  Cardinal  Pier-Leone  was  elected  pope,  although  he 
had  children  by  his  sister,  Tropea,  and  carried  a  concubine  with 
him  when  travelling,  as  Cardinal  Vanutelli  is  said  to  have  done 
when  he  attended  the  Canadian  Council,  several  years  ago. 

Pope  Innocent  VIII.  had  sixteen  illegitimate  children,  and 
Pope  Alexander  VI.  nearly  as  many;  and  although  Pope  Bene- 
dict IX.  was  only  ten  years  old  when  made  Pontiff  by  his  dis- 
solute mother,  he  lost  no  time  before  sinking  into  the  most 
swinish  debauchery. 

Canon  Burchard,  the  private  Chamberlain  to  Pope  Alexander 
VI.,  wrote : 

"The  women  (of  the  convents)  were  persecuted  and  im- 
prisoned if  they  had  any  relation  with  laymen ;  but  when  they 
yielded  themselves  to  the  monks,  masses  were  sung  and  feasts 
given.  The  nuns,  thus  coupled  give  birth  to  gentle  and  pretty 
little  monks,  or  else  they  cause  abortions  to  be  performed.  If 
any  one  were  tempted  to  uphold  that  this  is  not  true,  he  need  only 
search  the  privy  vaults  of  the  convents,  and  he  will  find  there 
nearly  as  many  children's  bones  as  were  in  Bethlehem  in  the  time 
of  Herod." 

(See  Human  Sexuality,  p.  258.) 

In  describing  the  morals  of  the  Pope  and  the  priests,  the  poet 
Petrarch  used  language  which  cannot  be  printed. 

Babylon  itself  never  sunk  lower  in  bestial  vice ;  and  Petrarch's 
feelings  were  intensified  by  the  brutal  assault  which  the  Pope 
made  upon  the  poet's  young  and  beautiful  sister. 

Pope  Gregorv  XII.  in  a  letter  to  an  Abbot  wrote,  in  the  year 
1408: 

"Many  of  the  nuns  commit  fornication  with  the  monks  and 
the  lay  brothers :  and  in  the  same  monasteries  bring  forth  sons 
and  daughters  *  *  *  and  not  a  few  of  the  nuns  destroy  the  foetus, 
and  kill  the  children  who  see  the  light." 

(Cited,  and  the  full  Latin  text  given  in  "Xuns  and  Xun- 
neries,"  p.  184,     See  Api)endix  A  to  this  article.) 

The  Council  of  Mayence.  under  Pope  Stephen  \'.,  absolutely 
forbade  priests  to  allow  "any  description  of  women  to  live  in 
the  house"  with  them,  and  declared  that  "very  many  crimes  have 
been  committed  so  that  some  jtriests  liave  had  chiklren  born  to 
them  by  their  own  sisters," 

(See  Appendix  B  for  the  Latin  decree  of  the  Council.) 

Xicholas  dc  Clamengcs  was  a  famous  Catholic  scholar,  rector 
of  the  University  of  Paris,  in  1393,  and  later  Archdeacon  of 
Haieux.  When  he  died  at  the  College  of  Navarre,  he  was 
buried  in  the  Chapel,  under  the  lamp  before  the  great  altar.     He 


published  a  book  on  the  subject  of  the  corruption  in  his  church. 
He  attributed  this  evil  condition  to  the  vicious  lives  of  the  priests, 
and  to  the  fact  that  when  they  committed  murder,  rape,  or  any 
other  enormous  crime,  they  can  pay  themselves  out  of  prison 

with  money. 

(The  Popes  had  a  price-list,  and  the  fine  or  tax  for  crimes 
ranged  all  the  way  from  theft  and  gambling  up  to  perjury,  incest, 
sacrilege,  assassination,  and  rape.) 

Alluding  to  other  causes  of  depravity,  the  Catholic  scholar 
says : 

"Touching  the  Monks  and  Monasteries,  there  is  abundance 
of  matter  to  speak  of — were  it  not  that  it  would  oppress  me 
to  dwell  long  on  the  enumeration  of  so  great  and  so  many 
abominations." 

Speaking  of  the  nuns,  Clamenges  says : 

"Modesty  forbids  me  to  say  much  concerning  them  that  might 
be  said."  Then  he  compares  the  convents  to  "brothels"  and  the 
nuns  to  "harlots,"  lewd  and  incestuous. 

In  1774,  Duke  Leopold  of  Tuscany  investigated  the  nun- 
neries of  his  dominions.  He  was  a  Catholic,  of  course,  and  his 
main  assistant  in  overhauling  the  convents  was  the  Catholic  Bishop 
Ricci. 

I  regret  that  space  cannot  be  given  to  all  the  testimony  se- 
cured by  Duke  Leopold  and  presented  in  substance  to  the  Pope, 
but  the  following  passage  which  occurs  in  a  letter  from  Bishop 
Ricci  to  Cardinal  Corsini,  sufficiently  indicates  the  conditions  un- 
covered : 

"In  writing  to  the  Pope,  I  would  not  enter  into  infamous  de- 
tails which  would  horrify  you. 

Yet  what  have  not  these  wretched  Dominican  Monks  been 
guilty  of ! 

The  stories  of  the  wife  of  the  Provincial  and  the  mistress  of 
the  Confessor,  and  other  follies  of  like  kind,  are  revolting  to 
every  one. 

That  which  I  have  learned,  makes  me  shudder." 

Duke  Leopold  having  become  Emperor  of  Austria,  the  good 
Bishop  Ricci  was  left  helpless  against  the  monks  whom  he  had 
exposed  and  infuriated.  The  Pope  turned  against  him,  he  lost 
his  bishopric,  and  he  was  compelled  to  humble  himself  by  signing 
a  recantation  of  the  charges  he  had  made  against  the  licentious 
monks — charges  based  upon  the  sworn  evidence  of  the  nuns, 
and  of  a  number  of  workmen  who  had  witnessed  many  of  the 
carousals   in   the   convents. 

The  immortal  Florentine  monk,  Savonarola,  said  "The  women 
in  the  convents  are  worse  than  the  courtesans" ;  and  the  most 
illustrious    literateur    the    Catholic    Church    ever    produced,    told 


the  Pope  practically  the  same  thing.  Erasmus,  in  his  wonderful 
book,  "The  Praise  of  Folly,"  lashes  the  monks  and  the  priests 
with  unsparing  severity,  nor  does  he  spare  the  Popes  themselves. 
In  his  letter  to  the  Prothonotary  of  Leo  X.,  he  enters  into  fright- 
ful details,  which,  however,  were  not  likely  to  shock  a  pontiflf 
who  was  a  chronic  sufferer  from  syphilis. 


HANS   SCHMIDT,   THE   PRIEST   WHO    MURDERED    HIS 
MISTRESS  IN  NEW  YORK 


"There  are  monasteries  where  there  is  no  discipline  and  which 
are  worse  than  brothels. 

There  are  others  again,  where  the  brethren  are  so  sick  of  the 
imposture,  that  they  keep  it  up  only  to  deceive  the  vulgar. 

The  convent  at  best  is  but  a  miserable  bondage,  and  if  there 
be  outward  decency,  a  knot  which  cannot  be  loosed  may  still  be 
fatal  to  soul  and  body.  ^ 

"Young  men  are  fooled  and  cheated  into  joining  these  \x- 
ders.     Once   in   the   toils,   thev   are   broken    in   and   trained   into 


Pharisees.  They  may  repent,  but  the  Superiors  will  not  let  them 
go,  lest  they  should  betray  the  orgies  zvhich  they  have  witnessed, 
They  crush  them  down  with  scourge  and  penance,  the  secular 
arm,  chanceries  and  dungeons.  Nor  is  this  the  worst.  Cardinal 
mateo  said  at  a  public  dinner,  before  a  large  audience,  naming 
place  and  persons,  that  the  Dominicans  had  buried  a  young  man 
alive  whose  father  demanded  his  son's  release.  A  Polish  noble 
who  had  fallen  asleep  in  a  church,  saw  two  Franciscans  buried 
alive;  yet  these  wretches  call  themselves  the  representatives  of 
Benedict  and  Basil  and  Jerome. 

A  monk  may  be  drunk  every  day.  He  may  go  zvith  loose 
zi'omen  secretly  or  openly.  He  may  waste  the  Church's  money 
on  vicious  pleasures.  He  may  be  a  quack  or  a  charlatan,  and 
all  the  while  be  an  excellent  brother  and  fit  to  be  made  an 
abbot ;  while  one  who.  for  the  best  of  reasons  lays  aside  his 
frock,  is  howled  at  as  an  apostate.  Surely  the  true  apostate 
is  he  who  gives  into  sensuality,  pomp,  vanity,  the  lusts  of  the 
flesh,  the  sins  which  he  renounced  at  his  baptism.  All  of  us 
would  think  him  a  worse  man  than  the  other,  if  the  common- 
ness of  such  characters  did  not  hide  their  deformity.  Monks  of 
abandoned  lives  notoriously  swarm  over  Christendom." 

(Life  and  Letters  of  Erasmus,  175.) 

In  the  "Familiar  Colloquies"  of  Erasmus,  there  are  two 
which  give  a  racy,  vivid  outline  of  the  lives  of  the  monks  and 
the  priests — the  dialogue  entitled  "The  Franciscans,"  and  that 
between  the  "Abbot  and  the  Learned  Woman." 

Chapter  VH.  of  Dr.  John  W.  Draper's  "Intellectual  Prog- 
ress of  Europe"  should  be  read  carefully  by  those  who  wish  to 
know  what  English  history  reveals,  of  the  natural  consequences 
of  trying  to  compel  priests  and  nuns  to  live  unnatural  lives. 
Nature  zvill  assert  itself. 

When  Pope  Innocent  III.  authorized  Morton,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  to  investigate  the  condition  of  the  English  convents 
and  monasteries,  in  1489,  it  was  found  that  they  were  hotbeds  of 
sensuality,  vices  and  crimes. 

(See  Lea:  Sacerdotal  Celibacy,  Vol.  II.,  p.  16.) 

In  fact,  the  Popes  so  thoroughly  understood  the  necessities 
of  nature,  in  the  case  of  the  lusty  priest,  that  a  very  moderate 
fine  was  levied  upon  the  delinquent  in  the  Taxes  of  the  Peni- 
tentiary. For  the  sum  of  four  gros  tournois,  or  less  than  half 
a  florin,  the  adulterous  or  concubinary  priest  could  purchase  for- 
giveness of  his  venial  sin. 

Perhaps  the  most  infamous  book  ever  printed  is  that  in  which 
the  Popes — Vicars  of  Christ! — jotted  down  the  prices  to  be  paid 
by  criminals  of  all  degrees  for  the  papal  pardon  of  all  sorts  of 
crime. 

(A  copy  of  this  book  is  in  the  British  Museum.) 


10 

Are  the  nuns  free  to  leave  the  convents?  Are  these  most 
pitiable  women  the  slaves  of  the  priests,  walled  up  in  a  living 
tomb,  utterly  without  means  of  resistance  and  of  escape?  Are 
they  completely  in  the  power  of  the  priests,  and  have  they  any 
chance  whatever  to  appeal  to  the  State? 

Read  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  enjoining  all  bishops 
to  enforce  the  close  confinement  of  nuns,  by  every  means,  and 
even  to  engage  the  assistance  of  the  secular  arm  for  that  pur- 
pose. 

All  Princes  are  commanded  to  protect  the  convent  enclosure, 
and  all  civil  magistrates  are  threatened  with  excommunication,  if 
they  fail  to  aid  the  bishop  in  throwing  the  escaped  nun  back  into 
the  living  tomb. 

God  in  Heaven !  These  ravening  wolves  of  Rome  have  58,- 
000  American  women  now  imprisoned,  under  lock  and  key,  and 
the  State  does  not  dare  to  exercise  the  sovereign  right  to  inves- 
tigate the  condition  of  those  cesspools  of  priestly  vice.  On  the 
contrary,  when  some  poor,  half-maddened  girl  or  woman  does 
elude  the  vigilance  of  the  papal  guards,  and  escape  over  the 
dungeon  wall,  policemen,  sheriffs,  constables  and  baiHffs  are 
swift  to  seize  her  and  drag  her  back  to  life-long  captivity. 

No  Catholic  woman,  it  would  seem,  can  reach  the  pinnacle  of 
religious  bliss,  until  she  walks  into  a  papal  Bastille,  and  lets  the 
unmarried  priest  turn  the  key  on  her. 

"Spouse  of  Christ!" — the  most  loathsome  phrase  that  ever  was 
invented  to  cover  a  secret  system  of  hideous  pollution. 

In  a  letter  to  Bishop  Ricci,  a  Paulist  monk  describes  the  Por- 
tuguese convents  as  follows : 

"The  regular  priests  have  become  the  bonzes  of  Japan,  and 
the  nuns  the  disciples  of  Venus.  Their  convents  zvere  seraglios 
for  the  monks." 

In  1851,  Dr.  Theodore  Dwight,  of  New  York,  published  a 
book  entitled  "The  Roman  Republic  of  1849,  with  Accounts  of  the 
Inquisition,  and  the  Seige  of   Rome." 

On  page  210,  the  author  says: 

"The  Republican  government  having  been  made  acquainted 
with  all  the  infamous  practices  among  the  monks  of  La  Mad- 
dalena.  and  certain  Jesuit  nuns,  who  had  charge  of  educating  the 
female  foundlings,  turned  them  both  out.  The  Pope  (Pius  IX.) 
ordered  the  monks  to  be  restored,  that  they  might  again  tyrannize 
over  those  unhappy  women. 

On  hearing  of  this  order,  the  nuns  (three  or  four  hundred) 
exclaimed  with  one  voice,  'We  will  not  AGAIN  be  the  priests' 
concubines!'  " 


11 

The  author  then  relates  how  the  desperate  women  attempted 
to  save  themselves  from  their  former  fate  by  barricading  the 
doors,  arming  themselves  with  such  poor  weapons  as  the  kitchen 
afforded,— knives,  forks,  spits,  etc.— displayed  the  Republican 
flag,  and  fought  off  their  assailants  for  two  days. 

Who  were  the  asailants  of  these  Italian  Catholic  women  that 
were  resisting  the  Pope's  order,  which  meant  renewed  sexual  sub- 
mission to  the  bestial  priests? 

Those  asasilants  were  French  Catholic  soldiers,  commanded 
by  the  old  Napoleonic  marshal,  Oudinot ;  and  these  foreign  bayo- 
nets had  been  sent  into  Italy,  at  the  urgent  instance  of  Pius  IX., 
by  Napoleon  III.,  whose  bigoted  Spanish  wife  was  the  tool  of 
the  Jesuits,  and  the  Evil  Genius  of  France. 

The  distracted  nuns  were  of  course  subdued,  some  of  them 
thrown  into  lunatics'  cells,  and  the  others  put  under  lock  and 
key— the  monks  being  the  goalers.  What  happened  then,  to  those 
women,  behind  those  locked  doors  and  thick  walls?     God  knows. 

Blanco  White  says  in  his  "Evidences  Against  Roman  Cath- 
olicnsm,"  that  during  the  brief  existence  of  the  Hberal  govern- 
ment in  Spain,  in  1822,  the  nuns  were  offered  their  freedom, 
and  that  in  Madrid  more  than  two  hundred  immediately  fled  the 
convents. 

Against  the  monks,  in  their  horrible  abuse  of  the  nuns,  no 
witness  bore  weightier  testimony  than  the  ex-monk,  Blanco  White ; 
and  Cardinal  Newman  himself  admitted  that  the  word  of  White 
could  not  be  doubted :  his  character  was  too  lofty  and  spotless  for 
even  the  vituperous  tongues  of  mendacious  priests. 

On  page  144  of  the  work  already  named,  Blanco  White  says 
of  female  convents — "I  cannot  find  tints  sufficiently  dark  and 
gloomy  to  portray  the  miseries  which  /  have  witnessed  in  their 
inmates. 

Crime,  indeed,  makes  its  way  into  those  recesses,  in  spite  of 
the  spiked  walls  and  prison  gates. 

This  I  know  with  all  the  certainty  which  the  self -accusation 
of  the  guilty  can  give.  In  vain  does  the  law  of  the  land  stretch 
a  friendly  hand  to  the  repentant  victim :  the  unhappy  slave  may  be 
dying  to  break  her  fetters !" 

But  suppose  some  poor  Maria  Monk  does  elude  her  jailers 
and  escape  into  the  world? 

White  paints  the  picture  of  the  sickening  consequences : 
"Her  own  parents  would  disown  her;   friends  would  shrink 
from  her;  she  would  be  haunted  by  priests  and  their  zealous 
emissaries,  and,  like  her  sister  victims  of   superstition  in  India, 


12 

be  made  to  die  of  a  broken  heart,  if  she  refused  to  return  to  the 
burning  pile  from  which  she  had  fled  in  frantic  fear." 

Of  course,  Blanco  White  here  refers  to  the  Hindoo  suttee 
which  required  the  widow  of  a  Brahman  to  be  burned  on  the 
same  funeral  pyre  which  consumed  the  corpse  of  her  husband. 
Long  ago,  the  English  prohibited  the  suttee,  and  it  is  now  a  thing 
of  the  past;  but  what  must  be  the  cynical  reflections  of  the 
learned  Brahman  when  he  sees  how  the  English — in  the  Old 
World  and  the  New — have  allowed  the  Roman  superstition  to 
expand  and  perpetuate  a  hideous  system  of  man's  inhumanity  to 
women,  in  the  lifelong,  hopeless  and  helpless  incarceration  of 
duped  "Spouses  of  Christ?" 

Blanco  White  testified  to  what  he  saw!  Cardinal  Newman 
asserts  that  Blanco  White  is  to  be  implicitly  believed  whenever 
he  states  things  which  he  claimed  to  know.  Could  evidence  be 
more  convincing? 

Not  a  soul  ever  undertook  to  overthrow  the  evidence  of  this 
ex-monk  of  Spain,  the  tutor  in  the  home  of  Archbishop  Whate- 
ley,  the  Oxford  scholar,  and  the  honored  friend  of  the  most 
eminent  Englishmen  of  his  day. 

So  much,  then,  by  way  of  historic  background  for  the  "Awful 
Disclosures  of  Maria  Monk."  We  have  seen  what  Popes  and 
Councils  alleged  against  the  unnatural  life  of  convents  and  monas- 
teries; we  have  seen  how  the  Council  of  Trent  virtually  decreed 
that  the  nuns  were  prisoners  who  must  be  flung  back  into  their 
dungeons,  if  they  should  escape;  we  have  seen  how  the  roof 
was  lifted  off  the  system  by  official  investigation,  in  Italy  and 
England;  we  have  seen  how  the  Catholic  authors — Erasmus, 
Savonarola,  Ricci,  and  Clamenges — corroborated  Luther,  Calvin 
and  Knox;  we  have  seen  how,  in  the  most  modern  developments 
as  in  the  most  ancient,  the  fruits  of  the  system  are  absolutely 
the  same;  and  we  have  brought  the  evidence  down  to  1849,  a 
date  later  than  those  involved  in  the  narrative  of  Maria  Monk. 

CELIBACY  FORBIDDEN   BY  THE  BIBLE. 

Not  only  were  the  priests  of  ancient  Jewry  free  to  marry, 
but  they  were  required  to  do  so — for  the  same  decently  prudential 
reasons  which  demand  that  a  Greek  Catholic  pastor  shall  have 
a  wife. 

Naturally,  therefore,  the  first  Christian  ministers  were  mar- 
ried men,  since  they  were  Jews  who  based  their  faith  in  part 
upon  the  Old  Testament. 

Eusebius,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  states  that  Paul,  the 
Apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  ivas  a  married  man! 


13 

Of  course  every  one  is  aware  of  the  fact  that  Eusebius  is 
"the  Father  of  Church  History,"  and  that  he  flourished  in  the 
time  of  the  Roman  Emperor,  Constantine  the  Great.  My  copy 
of  his  work  was  published  in  London,  in  the  year  1636. 

On  page  51.  chapter  27,  we  read—  . 

"Clemens  whose  words  lately  we  alleged,  afterwards  reciteth 
the  Apostles  which  lived  in  wedlock,  against  them  zvhtch  rejected 

marriage,  saving —  -,    .       r^  .   n;  -I'-u 

What^  do  they  condemn  the  Apostles?  for  Peter  and  Flitltp 

employed   their  industry   to   the   bringing   up   of   their   chddren. 

Philip  also  gave  his  daughter  to  marriage. 

And  Paul  in  a  certain  Epistle  sticked  not  to  salute  his  ivife, 

which  therefore  he  led  not  about,  that  he  might  be  the  readier 

unto  ministration." 

The  faces  of  ancient  anchorites,  as  shown  in  historical  pic- 
tures reallv  look  like  those  of  ascetics :  they  are  thin,  careworn, 
devotional' introspective.  Apparently,  they  lived  hard  and  mis- 
anthroped  a  great  deal.  Their  daily  diet  was  bred  and  water. 
Thev  wore  hair-cloth  garments,  whipped  themselves  severely, 
slept  on  the  bare  stones,  and  ran  foot-races  with  the  Devil  when- 
ever thev  felt  him  heating  up  their  carnalities. 

They  avoided  women,  and  were  afraid  to  have  a  piece  ot 
calico  about.  When  their  thoughts  wandered  into  forbidden  paths 
they  crossed  themselves  vigorously,  and  yelled,  "Get  thee  behind 

me.  Lucifer!"  ,      ,      j       r      ir 

Wine  they  dared  not  drink,  lest  it  loosen  the  bands  ot   selt- 

restraint.  ,  ,  ,      ,     ,  ,    , 

Meat  they  dared  not  eat,  lest  it  create  red  blood  of  a  rebel- 
lious nature.  ,       ... 

Warm  bed  clothing  they  dared  not  use,  lest  it  mvite  sensuous 

dreams  to  the  midnight  couch.  ,       -,    t         •     *• 

Thus  thev  lived  abstemiously,  mortifying  the  tlesh,  rejecting 
all  the  good  diings  of  nature,  and  glorifying  God,  by  scornfully 
refusing  to  live  in  accordance  with  the  innate  promptings  of  the 

sex 

Before  a  human  being  of  sound  mind  can  be  educated  into 
that  sort  of  a  monstrosity,  he  has  to  be  caught  early  in  youth,  and 
carefully  trained   for  the  unnatural  part. 

These  olden  saints  have  long  since  disappeared  from  earth. 
The  modern  Virgins  of  the  Roman  Church  are  built  on  different 
lines,  and  live  in  a  wholly  different  way.  They  believe  in  all 
the  good  things  that  bountiful  Nature  has  provided.  They  glority 
God  by  having  a  joyous  time. 

They  find  that  the  allotted  span  of  life  is  entirely  too  short 
to  be  spent  on  parched  corn  and  well-water.  The  whipcord 
and  the  hair-shirt,  are  unknown  to  their  philosophy. 


14 


In  all  of  their  religious  papers,  you  will  find  the  advertise- 
ments of  the  very  best  wines,  made  specially  for  the  use  of  the 
Virgins,  and  sold  especially  to  them. 

In  all  of  their  religious  papers,  you  will  find  these  male  Vir- 


•%?A  r'--'' 


CARDINAL    BILLY   O  CONNELL,   A    MODKRN     \"IKt;i.\.        PICTrRF.    TAKF.N 

JUST   AFTER    HE   HAD   FED   SPARINGLY   OX    DRY 

HERBS    AND    STALE    WATER. 


gins  advertising  for  feminine  "housekeepers,"  and  you  will  find 
where  the  women  who  wish  to  keep  house  for  the  bachelor  priests, 
advertise  their  willingness. 

At    middle    age,    these    modern    male    Virgins    of    Rome    are 


15 

almost  invariably  corpulent,  sensual,  gross ;  with  thick,  red  lips, 
with  dew-lap  necks,  with  bulging  eyes,  and  with  swelling  ab- 
domens. 

As  a  class,  the  Roman  Catholic  priests  of  today  are  the  most 
libertine-looking  men  on  earth,  and  thenar  looks  tell  a  true  tale. 

As  a  class,  they  are  epicures  and  libertines. 

Dr.  Justin  D.  Fulton's  dynamic  book,  "Why  Priests  Should 
Wed."  reveals  the  fact  that  this  same  Pope  Pius  IX.  authorized, 
in  1866,  a  secret  order  within  the  priesthood,  as  a  substitute  for 
marriage. 

That  secret  order,  within  the  secret  orders,  licenses  the  priests 
of  approved  sfanddng  to  cohabit  sexually  zvith  nuns  zvho  can  be 
relied  on  to  hide  the  sin. 

Dr.  Justin  D.  Fulton  was  a  responsible  and  fearless  man. 
He  made  his  damning  accusation  in  a  book  which  Rome  has  never 
dared  to  challenge. 

The  book  was  submitted  to  Anthony  Comstock,  Post-Office 
Inspector,  before  it  was  given  to  the  printers. 

That  terrible  arraignment  of  the  bachelor  priests  and  their 
concubines — the  cloistered  nuns — far  surpasses  in  detail  and  direct 
description  anything  that  I  ever  wrote. 

Yet  the  men  whom  Dr.  Fulton  accused  never  dared  to  hale 
///;;;  to  court. 

Nor  have  they  ever  in  any  of  their  papers,  pamphlets,  books, 
or  sermons  denied,  THAT  POPE  PIUS  IX.  IN  1866,  AU- 
THORIZED PRIESTS  AND  NUNS  TO  COHABIT,  AS 
MAN  AND  WIFE! 

Under  the  administration  of  the  bloated  brute.  Cardinal 
William  ( )"Connell.  a  priest  of  the  name  of  Pertrachi,  notori- 
ous for  his  crimes  against  Catholic  women,  was  put  in  charge 
of  the  Roman  parish  at  Milford.  Mass.  He  had  been  several 
times  removed  from  former  appointments  because  of  his  un- 
bridled lusts.  At  Milford,  he  seized  a  Catholic  woman  while 
she  knelt  at  the  altar-rail,  alone,  feeling  secure  in  the  sanctity 
of  the  Cathedral.  The  priest  crept  upon  her  from  his  "sacristy," 
seized  her,  dragged  her  into  his  private  room,  and  raped  her! 

What  was  done  abt)ut  it?  Nothing.  He  was  never  even 
arrested.  He  "disappeared,"  just  as  John  Holtgreve,  the  Lou- 
isiana priest,  disappeared  from  Iberville,  after  he  was  indicted 
for  sodomy,  committed  on  the  little  choir-boys  of  his  church. 

The  woman  whom  Petrarchi  outraged,  in  the  Catholic  Ca- 
thedral, sued  Bishop  Beaven  for  damages,  alleging  that  he  knezv 


16 


the  bad  character  of  the  priest,  at  the  time  the  pastorate  of  Mil- 
ford  was  bestowed  upon  him. 

The  case  went  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  Massachusetts,  where 
the  woman  lost,  because  the  Court  held  that,  although  Bishop 
Beaven  knew  beforehand  that  the  priest  would  commit  the  sexual 
crime  with  the  Catholic  women  in  his  charge,  the  Bishop  could 
not  foresee  that  the  priest  would  rape  any  of  them ! 

(That  decision  appears  in  the  South-Eastern  Reporter,  under 
the  case-name  of  Beaven  v  Carini.) 


TWO    MORE   AMERICAN    VESTALS THEY    NEVER    TOUCH    MEAT,    OR 

WINE. 


17 

Part  2. 

"In  the  year  1835,  Maria  Monk  was  found  alone  and  in  a  wretched 
and  feeble  condition,  on  the  outskirts  of  New  York  City,  by  a  humane 
man,  who  got  her  admitted  into  the  hospital  at  Bellevue.  She  then 
told  the  story  in  outline,  which  she  afterwards  and  uniformly  repeated 
in  detail,  and  which  was  carefully  written  down  and  published  in  the 
following  form:  She  said  she  was  a  fugitive  nun  from  the  Hotel  Dieu 
of  Montreal,  whence  she  had  effected  her  escape,  in  consequence  of 
cruelty  which  she  had  suffered,  and  crimes  which  were  there  com- 
mitted by  the  Romish  priests,  who  had  the  control  of  the  institution, 
and  to  which  they  had  access,  by  private  as  well  as  public  entrances. 
Having  expressed  a  willingness  to  go  to  that  city,  make  public  ac- 
cusations, and  point  out  evidences  of  their  truth  in  the  convent  itself, 
she  was  taken  thither  by  a  resolute  man,  who  afterwards  suffered  for 
an  act  of  great  merit;  but  she  was  unable  to  obtain  a  fair  hearing,  ap- 
parently through  the  secret  opposition  of  the  priests.  She  reurned  to 
New  York,  where  her  story  was  thought  worthy  of  publication,  and 
it  was  proposed  to  have  it  carefully  written  down  from  her  lips,  and 
published  in  a  small  pamphlet.  Everything  she  communicated  was, 
therefore,  accurately  written  down,  and,  when  copied  out,  read  to  her 
for  correction." 

The  above  extract  is  taken  from  the  Preface  to  the  original 
edition  of  "Maria  Monk." 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  repeat  the  story  of  this  unfortunate 
victim  of  the  Roman  system.  It  is  practically  the  same  as  that 
of  the  Italian  nuns  of  1849;  of  the  Spanish  nuns  whose  fate 
was  indicated  by  the  unimpeachable  Blanco  White ;  of  the  Tuscan 
nuns  who  testified  before  the  Commission  of  Duke  Leopold; 
and  of  the  French  nuns  who  escaped  about  the  same  time  that 
Maria  Monk  did,  and  whose  cases  came  before  the  French  courts. 

(See  History  Auricular  Confession,  by  Count  C.  P.  DeLastey- 
rie.     Also,  "Nunneries,"  by  Seeley.) 

In  short,  Maria  Monk,  a  Canadian  girl,  entered  the  Mon- 
treal convent  in  good  faith,  and  soon  discovered  that  she  was 
a  prisoner,  a  slave,  a  sexual  victim  of  the  priests :  that  if  the 
nuns  rebelled,  they  were  barbarously  punished,  and  even  killed; 
that  the  virginal  nuns  who  resisted  the  priests  were  ravished; 
that  infants  born  in  the  convent  were  first  baptized  and  then 
smothered — just  as  Pope  Gregory  XII.  charged  in  his  official 
letter,  whose  original  Latin  you  will  find  in  the  appendix  to  this 
article. 

Maria  Monk  gave  the  following  account  of  herself : 

My  parents  were  both  from  Scotland,  but  had  been  resident  in 
Lower  Canada  some  time  before  their  marriage,  which  took  place  in 
Montreal;  and  in  that  city  I  spent  most  of  my  life.  I  was  born  at 
St.   John's,   where  they   lived   for   a   short   time.       My   father   was   an 


18 

officer   under   the    British    Government,    and    my   mother    has    enjoyed 
a  pension  on  that  account  ever  since  his  death. 

According  to  my  earliest  recollections,  he  was  attentive  to  his 
family;  and  a  particular  passage  from  the  Bible,  which  often  oc- 
curred to  my  mind  in  after  life,  I  may  very  probably  have  been 
taught  by  him,  as  after  his  death,  I  do  not  recollect  to  have  received 
any  religious  instruction  at  home;  and  was  not  even  brought  up  to 
read  the  scriptures;  my  mother,  although  nominally  a  Protestant, 
not  being  accustomed  to  pay  attention  to  her  children  in  this  respect. 
She  was  rather  inclined  to  think  well  of  the  Catholics,  and  often  at- 
ended  their  churches.  To  my  want  of  religious  instruction  at  home 
and  the  ignorance  of  my  Creator,  and  my  duty,  which  was  its  natural 
effect,  I  think  I  can  trace  my  introduction  to  convents,  and  the  scenes 
which  I  am  to  describe  in  this  narrative. 

When  about  six  or  seven  years  of  age,  I  went  to  school  to  a 
Mr.  Workman,  a  Protestant,  who  taught  in  Sacrament  street,  and  re- 
mained several  months.  There  I  learned  to  read  and  write,  and  arith- 
metic as  far  as  division.  All  the  progress  I  ever  made  in  those 
branches  was  gained  in  that  school,  as  I  have  never  improved  in  any  of 
them  since. 

A  number  of  girls  of  my  acquaintance  went  to  school  to  the  nuns 
of  the  Congregational  Nunnery,  or  Sisters  of  Charity,  as  they  are 
sometimes  called.  The  schools  taught  by  them  are  perhaps  more 
numerous  than  some  of  my  readers  may  imagine.  Nuns  are  sent 
out  from  that  convent  to  many  of  the  towns  and  villages  of  Canada 
to  teach  small  schools;  and  some  of  them  are  established  as  instruc- 
tresses in  different  parts  of  the  United  States.  When  I  was  about 
ten  years  old,  my  mother  asked  me  one  day  if  I  should  not  like  to 
learn  to  read  and  write  French;  and  I  then  began  to  think  seriously 
of  attending  the  school  in  the  Congregational  Nunnery.  I  had  al- 
ready some  acquaintance  with  that  language,  sufficient  to  speak  it  a 
little,  as  I  heard  it  every  day,  and  my  mother  knew  something 
of  it. 

I  have  a  distinct  recollection  of  my  first  entrance  into  the  Nun- 
nery; and  the  day  was  an  important  one  in  my  life,  as  on  it  com- 
menced my  acquaintance  was  a  Convent.  I  was  conducted  by  some 
of  my  young  friends  along  Notre  Dame  street  till  we  reached  the  gate. 
Entering  that,  we  walked  some  distance  along  the  side  of  a  building 
towards  the  chapel,  until  we  reached  a  door,  stopped,  and  rung  a 
bell.  This  was  soon  opened,  and  entering,  we  proceeded  through  a 
long  covered  passage  till  we  took  a  short  turn  to  the  left,  soon  after 
which  we  reached  the  door  of  the  schoolroom.  On  iny  entrance,  the 
Superior  met  me,  and  told  me  first  of  all  that  I  must  always  dip  my 
fingers  into  the  holy  water  at  her  door,  cross  myself,  and  say  a  short 
prayer;  and  this  she  told  me  was  always  required  of  Protestants  as 
well  as  Catholic  children. 

There  were  about  fifty  girls  in  the  school,  and  the  nuns  pro- 
fessed to  teach  something  of  reading,  writing,  arithmetic,  and  geography. 
The  methods,  however,  were  very  imperfect,  and  little  attention  was 
devoted  to  them,  the  time  being  in  a  great  degree  engrossed  with 
lessons  in  needlework,  which  was  performed  with  much  skill.  The 
nuns  had  no  very  regular  parts  assigned  them  in  the  management  of 
the  schools.  They  were  rather  rough  and  unpolished  in  their  manners, 
often  exclaiming,  "c'est  un  menti"  (that's  a  lie),  and  "mon  Dieu" 
(My  God),  on  the  most  trivial  occasions.  Their  writing  was  quite 
poor,  and  it  was  not  uncommon  for  them  to  put  a  capital  letter  in  the 


19 

middle  of  a  word.  The  only  book  on  geography  which  we  studied, 
was  a  catechism  of  geography,  from  which  we  learnt  by  heart  a  few 
questions  and  answers.  We  were  sometimes  referred  to  a  map,_  but 
it  was  only  to  point  out  Montreal  or  Quebec,  or  some  other  promment 
name,  while  we  had  no  instruction  beyond. 

It  may  be  necessary  for  the  information  of  some  of  my   readers 
to  mention  that  there  are  three  distinct  Convents  in   Montreal,  all  of 
different    kinds;    that    is,    founded    on    different    plans,    and    governed 
by  different  rules.       Their  names  are  as  follows: 
1st.     The  Congregational  Nunnery. 

2nd.     The  Black  Nunnery,  or  Convent  of  Sister  Bouigeoise. 
3d.     The  Grey  Nunnery. 

The  first  of  these  professes  to  be  devoted  entirely  to  the  educa- 
tion of  girls.  It  would  require,  however,  only  a  proper  examination 
to  prove  that,  with  the  exception  of  needlework,  hardly  anything  is 
taught  excepting  prayers  and  the  catechism;  the  instruction  in  reading, 
writing,  etc.,  in  fact,  amounting  to  very  little,  and  often  to  nothing. 
This  Convent  is  adjacent  to  that  next  to  be  spoken  of,  being  separated 
from  it  only  by  a  wall.  The  second  professes  to  be  a  charitable  m- 
stitution  for  the  care  of  the  sick,  and  the  supply  of  bread  and  medicines 
for  the  poor;  and  something  is  done  in  these  departments  of  charity, 
although  but  an  insignificant  amount,  compared  with  the  size  of  the 
buildings  and  the  number  of  the  inmates. 

The  Gray  Nunnery,  which  is  situated  in  a  distant  part  of  the 
city,  is  also  a  large  edifice,  containing  departments  for  the  care  of 
insane  persons  and  foundlings.  With  this,  however,  I  have  less  per- 
sonal acquaintance  than  with  either  of  the  others.  I  have  often  seen 
two  of  the  Grey  nuns,  and  know  that  their  rules  as  well  as  the  Con- 
gregational Nunnery,  do  not  confine  them  always  within  their  walls, 
like  those  of  the  Black  Nunnery.  These  two  Convents  have  their 
common  names  (Black  and  Grey)  from  the  colors  of  the  dresses  worn 
by  their  inmates. 

In  all  these  three  Convents,  there  are  certain  apartments  into 
which  strangers  can  gain  admittance,  but  others  from  which  they  are 
always  excluded.  In  all,  large  quantities  of  various  ornaments  are  made 
by  the  nuns,  which  are  exposed  for  sale  in  the  Ornament  rooms,  and 
afford  large  pecuniary  receipts  every  year,  which  contribute  rnuch 
to  their  incomes.  In  these  rooms  visitors  often  purchase  such  thmgs 
as  please  them  from  some  of  the  old  and  confidential  nuns  who  have 
the  charge  of  them. 

From  all  that  appeals  to  the  public  eye,  the  nuns  of  these  Con- 
vents are  devoted  to  the  charitable  objects  appropriate  to  each,  the 
labor  of  making  different  articles,  known  to  be  manufactured  by 
them,  and  the  religious  observances,  which  occupy  a  large  portion 
of  their  time.  1  hey  are  regarded  with  much  respect  by  the  people 
at  large;  and  now  and  then  when  a  novice  takes  the  veil  she  is 
supposed  to  retire  from  the  temptations  and  troubles  of  this  world 
into  a  state  of  holy  seclusion,  where  by  prayer,  self-mortification, 
and  good  deeds,  she  prepares  herself  for  heaven.  Sometimes  the 
Superior  of  a  Convent  obtains  the  character  of  working  miracles;  and 
when  such  a  one  dies,  it  is  published  throughout  the  country,  and 
crowds  throng  the  Convent,  who  think  indulgences  are  to  be  de- 
rived from  bits  of  her  clothes  or  other  things  she  has  possessed;  and 
many  have  sent  articles  to  be  touched  to  her  bed  or  chair,  in  which 
a   degree   of  virtue   is    thought   to   remain.        I    used    to   participate   in 


20 

such  ideas  and  feelings,  and  began  by  degrees  to  look  upon  a  nun 
as  the  happiest  of  women,  and  a  Convent  as  the  most  peaceful,  holy, 
and  delightful  place  of  abode.  It  is  true,  some  pains  were  taken  to 
impress  such  views  upon  me.  Some  of  the  priests  of  the  Seminary 
often  visited  the  Congregational  Nunnery  and  both  catechised  and 
talked  with  us  on  religion.  The  Superior  of  the  Black  Nunnery, 
adjoining,  also,  occasionally  came  into  the  school,  enlarged  on  the 
advantages  we  enjoyed  in  having  such  teachers,  and  dropped  some- 
thing now  and  then  relating  to  her  own  Convent,  calculated  to  make 
us  entertain  the  highest  ideas  of  it,  and  to  make  us  sometimes  think 
of  the  possibility  of  getting  into  it. 

Among  the  instructions  given  us  by  the  priests  some  of  the  most 
pointed  were  those  directed  against  the  Protestant  Bible.  They  often 
enlarged  upon  the  evil  tendency  of  that  book,  and  told  us  that  but  for  it 
many  a  soul  now  condmned  to  hell,  and  suffering  eternal  punishment, 
might  have  been  in  happiness.  They  could  not  say  anything  in  its 
favor;  for  that  would  be  speaking  against  religion  and  against  God. 
They  warned  us  against  it,  and  represented  it  as  a  thing  very  dan- 
gerous to  our  souls.  In  confirmation  of  this,  they  would  repeat  some 
of  the  answers  taught  us  at  catechism,  a  few  of  which  I  will  here 
give.  We  had  little  catechisms  ("Le  Petit  Catechism")  put  into  our 
hands  to  study;  but  the  priests  soon  began  to  teach  us  a  new  set  of 
answers,  which  were  not  to  be  found  in  our  books,  and  from  some  of 
M'hich  I  received  new  ideas,  and  got,  as  I  thought,  important  light 
on  religious  subjects,  which  confirmed  me  more  and  more  in  my 
belief  in  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrines.  These  questions  and  answers 
I  can  still  recall  with  tolerable  accuracy,  and  some  of  them  I  will 
add  here.  I  never  have  read  them,  as  we  were  taught  them  only  by 
word  of  mouth. 

Q.     Why  did  not  God  make  all  the  commandments? 

A.     Because  man  is  not  strong  enough  to  keep  them. 

Q.     Why  are  men  not  to  read  the  New  Testament? 

A.  Because  the  mind  of  man  is  too  limited  to  understand  what 
God  has  written. 

There  was  a  little  girl  thirteen  years  old  whom  I  knew  in  the 
school,  who  resided  in  the  neighborhood  of  my  mother,  and  with 
whom  I  had  been  familiar.  She  told  me  one  day  at  school  of  the 
conduct  of  a  priest  with  her  at  confession,  at  which  I  was  astonished. 
It  was  of  so  criminal  and  shameful  a  nature,  I  could  hardly  believe  it, 
and  yet  I  had  so  much  confidence  that  she  spoke  the  truth,  that  I 
could  not  discredit  it. 

She  was  partly  persuaded  by  the  priest  to  believe  that  he  could 
not  sin,  because  he  was  a  priest,  and  that  anything  he  did  to  her 
would  sanctify  her;  and  yet  she  seemed  doubtful  how  she  should 
act.  A  priest,  she  had  been  told  by  him,  is  a  holy  man,  and  ap- 
pointed to  a  holy  office,  and  therefore  what  would  be  wicked  in  other 
men,  could  not  be  so  in  him.  She  told  me  that  she  had  informed 
her  mother  of  it,  who  expressed  no  anger,  nor  disapprobation,  but 
only  enjoined  it  upon  her  not  to  speak  of  it;  and  remarked  to  her, 
that  as  priests  were  not  like  other  men,  but  holy,  and  sent  to  instruct 
and  save  us,  whatever  they  did  was  right. 

I  afterwards  confessed  to  the  priest  that  I  had  heard  the  story, 
and  had  a  penance  to  perform  for  indulging  a  sinful  curiosity  in  making 
inquiries;  and  the  girl  had  another  for  communicating  it.  I  afterward 
learned  that  other  children  had  been  treated  in  the  same  manner,  and 
also  of  similar  proceedings  in  other  places. 

Indeed,   it   was   not   long  before   such    language   was   used   to   me, 


21 

and  I  well  remember  how  my  views  of  right  and  wrong  were  shaken 
by  it.  Another  girl  at  the  school,  from  a  place  above  Montreal,  called 
the  Lac,  told  me  the  following  story  of  what  had  occurred  recently 
in  that  vicinity.  A  young  squaw,  called  La  Belle  Marie  (pretty 
Mary),  had  been  seen  going  to  confession  at  the  house  of  the  priest, 
who  lived  a  little  out  of  the  village.  La  Belle  Marie  was  afterwards 
missed,  and  her  murdered  body  was  found  in  the  river.  A  knife  was 
also  found,  covered  with  blood,  bearing  the  priest's  name.  Great 
indignation  was  excited  among  the  Indians,  and  the  priest  immediately 
absconded,  and  was  never  heard  from  again.  A  note  was  found  on 
his  table  addressed  to  him,  telling  him  to  fly  if  he  was  guilty. 

It  was  supposed  that  the  priest  was  fearful  that  his  conduct  might 
be  betrayed  by  this  young  female;  and  he  undertook  to  clear  himself 
by  killing  her. 

These  stories  struck  me  with  surprise  at  first,  but  I  gradually 
began  to  feel  differently,  even  supposing  them  true,  and  to  look  upon 
the  priests  as  men  incapable  of  sin;  besides,  when  I  first  went  to 
confession,  which  I  did  to  Father  Richards,  in  the  old  French  church 
((since  taken  down),  I  heard  nothing  improper;  and  it  was  not  until 
I  had  been  several  times,  that  the  priests  became  more  and  more 
bold,  and  were  at  length  indecent  in  their  questions  and  even  in  their 
conduct  when  I  confessed  to  them  in  the  Sacristie.  This  subject 
I  believe  is  not  understood  nor  suspected  among  Protestants;  and 
it  is  not  my  intention  to  speak  of  it  very  particularly,  because  it  is 
impossible  to  do  so  wthout  saying  things  both  shameful  and  de- 
moralizing. 

I  will  only  say  here,  that  when  quite  a  child,  I  had  from  the 
mouths  of  the  priests  at  confession  what  I  cannot  repeat,  with  treat- 
ment corresponding;  and  several  females  in  Canada  have  recently 
assured  me  that  they  have  repeatedly,  and  indeed  regularly,  been 
required  to  answer  the  same  and  other  like  questions,  many  of  which 
present  to  the  mind  deeds  which  the  most  iniquitous  and  corrupt  heart 
could  hardly  invent. 

At  length  I  determined  to  become  a  Black  nun,  and  called  upon 
one  of  the  oldest  priests  in  the  Seminary,  to  whom  I  made  known  my 
intention. 

The  old  priest  to  whom  I  applied  was  Father  Rocque.  He  is  still 
alive.  He  was  at  that  time  the  oldest  priest  in  the  Seminary,  and 
carried  the  Bon  Dieu  (Good  God),  as  the  sacramental  water  is  called. 
When  going  with  a  man  before  him,  who  rang  a  bell  as  a  signal 
to  administer  it  in  any  country  place,  he  used  to  ride.  When  the 
Canadians,  whose  habitations  he  passed,  heard  it,  they  would  come 
and  prostrate  themselves  to  the  earth,  worshipping  it  as  God.  He 
was  a  man  of  great  age,  and  wore  large  curls,  so  that  he  somewhat 
resembled  his  predecessor,  Father  Roue.  He  was  at  that  time  at 
the  head  of  the  Seminary.  This  institution  is  a  large  edifice  situated 
near  the  Congregational  and  Black  Nunneries,  being  on  the  east  side 
of  Notre  Dame  street.  It  is  the  general  rendezvous  and  centre  of 
'  all  the  priests  in  the  District  of  Montreal,  and,  I  have  been  told, 
supplies  all  the  country  with  priests  as  far  down  as  Three  Rivers, 
which  place,  I  believe,  is  under  the  charge  of  the  Seminary  of  Quebec. 
About  one  hundred  and  fifty  priests  are  connected  with  that  of  Mon- 
treal, as  every  small  place  has  one  priest,  and  a  number  of  larger  ones 
have  two. 

Father  Rocque  promised  to  converse  with  the  Superior  of  the 
Convent,   and   proposed   my   calling   again,   at   the   end   of   two    weeks. 


22 

at  which  time  I  visited  the  Seminary  again,  and  was  introduced  by 
him  to  the  Superior  of  the  Black  Nunnery.  She  told  me  she  must 
make  some  inquiries,  before  she  could  give  me  a  decided  answer; 
and  proposed  to  me  to  take  up  my  abode  a  few  days  at  the  house 
of  a  French  family  in  St.  Lawrence  suburbs,  a  distant  part  of  the 
city.  Here  I  remained  about  a  fortnight;  during  which  time  I  formed 
some  acquaintance  with  the  family,  particularly  with  the  mistress  of 
the  house,  who  was  a  devoted  Papist,  and  had  a  b'gh  respect  for  the 
Superior,  with  whom  she  stood  on  good  terms. 

At  length,  on  Saturday  morning  about  10  o'clock,  I  called  and 
was  admitted  into  the  Black  Nunnery,  as  a  novice,  much  to  my  satis- 
faction, for  I  had  a  high  idea  of  a  life  in  a  Convent,  secluded,  as  I 
supposed  the  inmates  to  be,  from  the  world  and  all  its  evil  influences, 
and  assured  of  everlasting  happiness  in  heaven.  The  Superior  re- 
ceived me,  and  conducted  me  into  a  large  room,  where  the  novices 
(who  are  called  in  French  Protulantes),  were  assembled,  and  engaged 
in   their  customary  occupation  of  sewing. 

Here  were  about  forty  of  them,  and  they  were  collected  in  groups 
in  different  parts  of  the  room,  chiefly  near  the  windows;  but  in  each 
group  was  found  one  of  the  veiled  nuns  of  the  Convent,  whose  abode 
was  in  the  interior  apartments,  to  which  no  novice  was  to  be  admitted. 
As  we  entered,  the  Superior  informed  the  assembly  that  a  new  novice 
had  come,  and  she  desired  any  present  who  might  have  known  me 
in  the  world  to  signify  it. 

Two  Miss  Fougnees,  and  a  Miss  Howard,  from  Vermont,  who 
had  been  my  fellow-pupils  in  the  Congregational  Nunnery,  immediately 
recognized  me." 

This  much  of  Maria  Monk's  narrative  is  given  in  order 
that  it  may  be  seen  how  definitely  she  mentions  places,  names, 
and  events,  and  how  fearlessly  she  opens  the  widest  door  to 
denial  and  refutation.  She  does  not  talk  like  the  maker  of  a 
myth,  but  with  the  plain  straight-forwardness  of  one  telling  a 
true  tale. 

When  her  dynamic  book  came  from  the  press  of  Harper 
Brothers,  it  was  almost  as  eagerly  read  as  was  the  New  Testa- 
ment of  Erasmus,  and  the  German  Bilile  of  Luther.  A  pro- 
found, national  sensation  was  felt.  Even  in  England,  the 
Romanists  quaked  at  the  consequences  of  these  fearful  revela- 
tions. 

The  priests  denied  that  Maria  Monk  had  ever  been  a  nun ; 
then  they  alleged  that  she  had  been  one.  but  had  been  expelled 
because  she  was  bad;  then  they  said  that  she  had  merely  copied 
a  Portuguese  book,  a  hundred  years  old ;  then  they  said  that 
the  Nunnery  was  not  constructed  as  Maria  had  described  it.  and  , 
that  it  had  no  underground  passage. 

Finally,  the  priests  said  that  Maria  Monk  had  always  been 
a  woman  of  bad  character,  a  prostitute  and  a  drunkard,  and 
that  she  had  died  wretchedly  in  the  insane  asylum  on  Black  well's 
Island. 

The    Romanists    allege    that    Bloody    Queen    Marv    and    her 


23 

bilious  spouse,  Philip  II.  of  Spain,  were  virtuously  amiable 
persons  and  that  Queen  Elizabeth  and  Martin  Luther  were 
tools  of'  the  Deivl.  The  Romanists  see  may  thmgs  to  admire  in 
the  Massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  and  many  a  good  word  is 
being  said  for  the  Inquisition.  The  Romanists  are  confident 
that  Torquemada  and  the  Duke  of  Alva  had  kmd  hearts  and 
are  certain  that  the  Jesuits  did  right  to  murder  Henry  IV.  and  the 
Prince  of  Orange. 

When  the  Romanist  mind  takes  colors  of  that  kind,  truth 
liecomes  a  negligible  matter. 

What  is  the  truth  about  Maria  Monk?  A  Romanist  and 
^  Jesuit— one  M.  J.  Walsh,  of  Augusta,  Georgia— roundly  as- 
serted in  a  recent  issue  of  The  Sunday  Visitor,  a  leading  Catholic 
paper,  that  "There  never  was  a  Maria  Monk  case!" 

Let  us  examine  the  record:  let  us  weigh  the  evidence:  let 
us  see  whether  there  ever  was  a  Maria  Monk  case— a  fact  which 
we  might  easily  believe,  after  we  learn  that  even  the  Romanists 
admit  that  there  zvas  a  Maria  Monk. 

Too  astute  and  too  cowardly  to  prosecute  the  Harper  Brothers 
and  Maria  Monk,  the  priests  took  up  the  weapons  of  Jesuitism. 

\  bulky  book  called  "Maria  Monk's  Daughter,"  was  pub- 
lished in  New  York  by  the  U.  S.  Publishing  Co.— whatever  that 
concern  may  have  been.  It  was  probably  a  nice,  patriotic  name 
to  cover  a  Roman  Catholic  publisher.  In  this  volume,  a  Mrs. 
L.  St.  John  Eckel,"  strives  to  show  up  her  own  mother,  as  an 
imposter  and  a  bawd ! 

The  loyal  daughter  says  in  her  story  that  she  wrote  her  book 
at  the  command  of  a  priest.  This  admission,  of  course,  puts  the 
royal  o.  k.  on  the  work. 

The  Eckel  woman  asesrts  that  Maria  Monk  was  Mrs.  St. 
John,  and  says  of  her.  "She  was  my  mother,  and  I  hated  her." 

The  narrative  of  Mrs.  Eckel  is  so  confused,  and  so  very 
much  in  contrast  to  the  simple  clearness  of  Maria  Monk's,  that 
it  is  difficult  to  follow  and  untangle  her  statements. 

Mrs  Eckel  apparently  means  to  be  understood  as  saying 
that  her  father  and  mother  were  always  fussing ;  that  her  father 
ijerjured  himself  in  the  lame  effort  to  steal  some  property; 
that  his  neighbors  detested  him,  and  that  her  mother  and  he 
separated  because  her  mother  was  so  much  worse  than  her  father 
But  vet  Mrs  Eckel  declared  that  her  father  was  a  descendant  of 
Lord  Bolingbroke,  and  had  the  best  blood  of  Old  England  in 
his  veins.  We  must  assume  then,  that  Mrs.  Eckel  "took  after 
her  mother. 

Of    the    pitiable    end    of    Maria     Monk,     this     extraordinay 


24 

daughter  says,  with  a  pathos  of  which  she  appeared  to  be  un- 
conscious : 

"At  last  when  my  mother  was  sent  to  Blackwell's  Island, 
my  sister  would  often  prevail  upon  the  boatmen  to  let  her  go  over 
with  the  convicts;  and,  when  she  got  there,  our  mother  would  al- 
ways be  waiting  for  her;  and  her  first  words  would  be :  'Have 
you  heard  front  the  children?       When  shall  I  see  them  again?" 

No  word  about  yourself,  poor  Maria  Monk !  No  complaint 
of  your  own  base  treatment  and  your  living  death !  No :  nothing 
but  the  mother's  wail,  heard  all  round  the  world,  since  the  day 
Eve  caught  the  cold  form  of  Abel  to  her  maternal  bosom.  The  old, 
old  cry  of  Ramah — Rachel  weeping  for  her  children ! 

"When  did  you  hear  from  my  children  ?  When  shall  I  ever 
see  them  again?" 

The  malignant  old  Jesuit.  Cardinal  Gibbons,  says  in  his  shame- 
lessly lying  book : 

"God  avenged  the  crime  of  two  and  forty  boys  who  mocked 
the  prophet  Eliseus  by  sending  wild  beasts  to  tear  them  to  pieces. 
The  frightful  death  of  Maria  Monk,  the  caluminator  of  conse- 
crated Priests  and  Virgins,  who  ended  her  life  a  drunken  maniac 
on  Blackwell's  Island,  proves  that  our  religious  institutions  are 
not  to  me  mocked  with  impunity." 

Of  course,  if  Gibbons  wants  to  believe,  literally,  that  two 
little  Jewish  she-bears  ate  42  Jew  boys,  at  one  bait,  because  the 
boys  had  reminded  Eliseus  that  he  was  bald-headed,  it  is  Gibbons' 
privilege  to  do  it,  there  being  no  law  against  the  literal  construction 
of  any  Biblical  allegory,  parable,  or  folk  lore.  But  when  the 
artful  Cardinal  argues  that  the  Almighty  will  not  permit  people 
to  tell  the  truth  on  "consecrated  Priests  and  Virgins,"  I  must 
remind  him  that  no  bears,  and  no  drunken  mania  destroyed 
Erasmus,  Blanco  White,  Pope  Gregory  XII.,  Joseph  McCabe, 
William  Crowley,  Rev.  Justin  D.  Fulton,  Charles  Chiniquy, 
Bishop  Manuel  Ferrando,  ex-Priest  P.  A.  Seguin,  Rev.  William 
Hogan,  or  the  inipuitous  men  who  publish  The  Menace  and 
The  Jeffersonian. 

There  are  many  omissions  in  the  "Maria  Monk's  Daughter" 
which  cannot  be  explained.  It  is  not  stated  when,  where  and  of 
what  parentage,  "mother"  was  born ;  it  is  not  stated  when,  where, 
and  under  what  circumstances,  "mother"  was  married  to  St.  John ; 
it  is  not  stated  when,  where,  and  how  "mother"  misbehaved 
herself ;  it  is  not  stated  when,  by  whom,  and  what  evidence, 
"mother"  was  sentenced  to  Blackwell's  Island.  It  is  not  stated 
that  the  "Daughter"  was  present  when  "mother"  was  tried,  nor 
that  the  Daughter  ever  visited  the  imprisoned  motb.er ;  nor  tbat 


25 

the  daughter  knew  when  her  mother  died,  how  she  died,  and 
where  she  was  buried. 

It  is  not  stated  where,  when,  and  in  what  circumstances 
"father"  died,  although  the  Daughter  was  ravenously  fond  of 
"father."  It  is  not  stated  who  were  the  neighbors  and  the  bar- 
keepers who  knew  of  "mother's"  dissolute  habits. 

Great  pains  are  taken  to  embellish  Daughter's  book  with  a 
picture  of  her  own  lovable  self,  and  of  several  hard-faced,  nut- 
cracker aunts  of  hers;  but  no  picture  of  father  or  mother  is 
presented.  In  fact,  there  is  the  strangest  avoidance  of  names, 
dates,  and  corroborating  incidents,  the  very  things  so  necessary 
to  be  a  book  of  this  character. 

The  mother's  narrative  was  published  in  1836;  the  Daughter's 
attack,  in  1874:  the  prudent  priests  and  the  dutiful  Daughter 
patiently  waited  38  years  before  assailing  the  dead. 

A  good  many  witnesses  can  die,  disappear,  or  be  silenced  in 
38  years.  Against  the  dead  woman,  were  the  organizations  of 
the  most  powerful  and  criminal  church  that  ever  cursed  the 
world :  in  favor  of  the  dead,  there  was  nothing,  save  the  intrinsic 
evidences  of  truth  borne  in  her  plain,  connected,  circumstantial 
narrative,  supplemented  by  the  affidavits  of  a  few  persons  who 
knew  Maria  Monk,  but  who  could  not  possibh-  know  what  had 
been  done  to  her  in  the  Nunnery. 

There  is  at  least  one  redeeming  feature  about  "Daughter": 
she  paints  herself  almost  as  black  as  she  paints  "mother."  She 
seems  to  exult  in  the  fact  that  she  was  a  hell-cat,  that  her  uncle 
declared  she  was  possessed  of  the  Devil,  that  her  aunt  said  she 
v/ould  come  to  some  bad  end,  and  that  she  separated  from  her 
husband,  Eckel,  who  appears  to  have  died  in  consequence  of 
writing  a  few  stanzas  of  extremely  sad.  and  deplorablv  bad 
poetry. 

"Daughter's"  uncle  and  aunt  were  both  right :  Daughter 
zvas  possessed  of  a  Devil,  else  she  would  never  have  desecrated 
the  grave  of  her  mother ;  and  she  did  come  to  a  bad  end,  for  she 
flopped  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  exhibited  her  asinine 
qualities  by  giving  her  name  to  one  of  the  falsest  books  that 
Rome  ever  caused  to  be  published. 

As  I  have  indicated,  there  is  not  a  single  shred  of  evidence 
produced  in  this  vile  book  to  support  its  statements.  No  letter 
of  corroboration,  no  affidavit,  no  document,  no  transcript  from 
any  record. 

It  will  occur  to  every  intelligent  reader,  that  the  very  first 
requisites  to  such  a  work  as  that  of  "Maria  Monk's  Daughter," 
would  have  been  a  transcript  of  the  court  sentence  ivhich  con- 
demned Maria  Monk  to  BlackwelVs  Island,  and  a  transcript  from 
the  books  kept  there,  to  show  what  became  of  her.        No  such 


26 

documentary  evidence  has  yet  been  forthcoming.  Nor  has 
anyone  ever  produced  an  affidavit,  from  neighbor,  bar-keeper, 
brothel-keeper,  or  others,  to  substantiate  the  charge  that  Maria 
Monk  was  a  drunkard  and  a  prostitute. 

It  must  be  clear  to  you  that  the  Harper  Brothers  did  not 
assume  the  risks  and  responsibilities  of  such  a  book  as  the  "Awful 
Disclosures,"  without  having  made  careful  inquiries  into  her 
antecedents.  If  the  book  had  been  a  tissue  of  falsehoods,  the 
Harper  Brothers  could  have  been  ruined  by  libel  suits  and  pro- 
secutions. 

It  must  be  equally  clear  to  you  that  if  Maria  Monk  after- 
wards became  a  drunkard  and  a  prostitute,  her  persecutors  would 
have  gathered  up  affidavits  by  the  dozen,  and  published  them  at 
that  time. 

How  did  they  get  her  into  the  asylum  for  the  insane?  God 
knows.  Read  "Hard  Cash,"  and  learn  how  easily  it  can  be 
done.  Probably  no  day  passes  that  does  not  see  some  victim  of 
greed,  or  of  lust,  or  of  revenge  put  out  of  sight,  to  be  seen  no 
more  of  men  forever.  Some  are  buried  alive  in  convents,  some 
in  brothels,  some  in  lunatic  asylums. 

Why  should  an\-  woman,  in  a  book  issued  in  her  life-time, 
falsely  confess  that  she  had  been  raped,  held  in  vile  relations 
to  priests,  and  forced  to  bear  the  children  of  fornication?  What 
possible  benefit  could  she  hope  to  obtain  by  such  a  relation  of 
her  own  shame,  and  such  a  libellous  publication  against  living 
persons  whose  names  she  gave?  Why  did  the  Mother  Superior 
of  the  Black  Nunnery  never  dare  to  prosecute  Maria  Monk  and 
the  Harper  Brothers? 

The  Romanists  are  swift  enogh  to  prosecute  people  who 
reveal  the  truth  about  Roman  Catholic  thelogy ;  and  they  do  not 
deny  that  what  these  defendants  published  is  the  truth  :  but  they 
did  not  dare  to  prosecute  Maria  Monk,  nor  the  New  York  pub- 
lishers of  her  book.     Why  not? 

THEY  WERE  AFRAID  TO  FACE  HER  IN  COURT! 

They  hounded  her,  with  the  cowardice  and  savagery  of  wolves ; 
they  slandered  her  and  isolated  her ;  they  terrorized  the  poor 
creature  so  ruthlessly  and  persistently  that  her  reason  gave  way, 
and  she  did  die  a  raving  maniac. 

For  no  greater  cause,  the  mind  of  the  Empress  Carlotta 
failed  her,  when  the  benevolent  Pope  Pius  IX.  coldly,  pitilessly, 
refused  to  lift  a  finger  to  save  Maximilian,  the  Hapsburgh  arch- 
duke whom  the  Jesuits  and  Pope  Pius  had  sent  to  despotize  over 
the  Mexicans. 

One  night,  in  1905,  I  lay  very  sick  in  the  Victoria  Hotel, 
New   York;   and  my   physician.    Dr.   John   H.    Girdner,   relieved 


27 

the  dreariness  of  the  hours  by  telHng  me  of  the  fate  of  a  young 
German  who  had  followed  Frankie  Folsome  to  this  country. 
The  unfortunate  youth  called  himself  Bauer,  and  claimed  to  be- 
long to  the  lesser  nobility  of  a  small  Germanic  state.  He  may 
liae  been  the  son  of  Caroline  Bauer,  the  known  mistress  of  a 
German  prince  who  lived  with  her  a  while  in  England. 

Young  Bauer,  a  fine,  intelligent,  manly  fellow, — had  become 
acquainted  with  Frankie  Folsome  in  Europe — so  he  said. 

Anyway,  he  followed  her  to  this  country,  and  became  very 
annoying  and  obnoxious  to  Grover  Cleveland.  The  German 
labored  under  the  delusion  that  Miss  Folsome  was  his  betrothed, 
and  that  Mr.  Cleveland  had  unfairly  cut  him  out.  He  was  quite 
frantic  about  it,  and  very  importunate  in  his  demands  for  an 
interview  with  his  lost  lady. 

What  did  Mr.  Cleveland  do  to  rid  himself  of  the  nuisance? 
He  secured  the  affidavits  of  several  doctors — three,  as  I  remember 
— who  deposed  and  swore  that  the  young  German  was  crazy. 
Immediately,  without  further  proceedings,  he  was  confined  at  one 
of  the  New  York  institutions  for  the  insane — possibly  Blackwell's 
Island. 

Was  the  man  insane  ?  Who  knows  ?  But  if  it  is  so  easy  as 
all  that,  to  bury  a  stalwart  young  man  alive,  when  he  has  annoyed 
one  Protestant  family,  how  much  easier  is  it  for  the  powerful 
Roman  organizations  to  make  way  with  one  troublesome  and 
friendless  old  woman ! 

In  Ireland  and  in  England  the  "Awful  Disclosures  of  Maria 
Monk"  created  a  panic  among  the  papists.  They,  too,  got  in 
motion,  and  published  "the  facts"  against  the  "imposter."  I  have 
a  copy  of  "The  True  History  of  Maria  Mork,"  sponsored  by 
The  Catholic  Truth  Society,  of  London ;  and.  according  to  the 
fly-leaf.  102,000  have  been  distributed. 

The  Catholic  Truth  Society  presents  an  affidavit  alleged  to 
have  been  made  by  Dr.  William  Robertson,  a  Justice  of  the  Peace. 
This  medical  jurist  deposes  and  says  that  three  men- — ^names 
not  given — brought  "a  young  female"  to  his  house  on  November 
9,  1834,  and  that  the  three  men  said  that  the  young  female  called 
herself  Maria  Monk,  and  asserted  that  Dr.  Robertson  was  her 
father! 

The  three  men  had  seized  upon  the  young  female,  "on  the 
banks  of  the  canal,  near  the  extremity  of  the  St.  Joseph's  suburbs, 
acting  in  a  manner  which  induced  some  people  zvho  saw  her  to 
think  that  she  intended  to  drown  herself." 

According  to  the  medical  J.  P.,  the  three  mysterious  men 
brought  the  young  female  directly  to  his  house  from  the  canal. 
Further  on  in  his  affidavit  he  makes  this  statement : 


28 

"To  remove  her  from  the  watch-house,  where  she  was  con- 
fined with  some  of  the  most  profligate  women  of  the  town,  taken 
up  for  inbriety  and  disorderly  conduct  on  the  streets,  as  she  could 
not  give  a  satisfactory  account  of  herself,  I,  as  a  Justice  of  the 
Peace,  sent  her  to  gaol  as  a  vagrant." 

Yet  he  knew  that  her  father  had  lived  in  the  city  and  was 
named  W.  Monk. 

"In  the  course  of  a  few  days  she  was  released  from  the  gaol." 
Why?  If  she  was  in  truth  a  vagabond  and  her  commitment  to 
jail,  legal,  what  caused  her  release  in  a  few  days  without  any 
trial  ? 

The  medical  jurist  further  deposes  that  he  felt  it  incumbent 
on  himself  to  investigate  the  whereabouts  of  Maria  Monk  during 
the  years  she  claimed  to  have  lived  in  the  Nunnery.  This  most 
diligent  of  Medico-Justices  discovered  that  the  summer  of  1832 
was  passed  by  Maria  at  William  Henry,  ivhere  she  zvas  in  service : 
the  winter  of  1832-3  "she  passed  in  this  neighborhood  of  St. 
Ours  and  St.  Denis.  The  accounts  given  of  her  conduct  that 
season,  corroborate  the  opinions  I  had  before  entertained  of  her 
character." 

Any  affidavits  of  the  employers  in  whose  service  she  passed 
the  summer?  Nokc.  Any  letter,  or  signed  statement  about  "her 
conduct  that  season"  ?  None.  Any  names  of  employer  or  ac- 
quaintances of  Maria  mentioned?     None. 

That  Robertson  may  have  had  some  woman  sent  to  jail  is 
probable  enough,  but  he  took  abundant  precautions  against  im- 
peacliment  as  to  Maria  Monk,  for  he  does  not  name  the  three 
men  who  seized  the  young  female  on  the  canal,  he  does  not  fur- 
nish a  copy  of  the  gaol-book  entry,  he  does  not  say  in  whose 
service  the  woman  was  employed,  nor  does  he  name  a  single 
person  that  told  him  of  her  bad  conduct.  Indeed,  he  does  not 
specify  what  her  "conduct"  consisted  of,  but  shuns  specification 
by  saying  it  corroborated  his  prejudgment. 

Dr.  Robertson's  testimony — vague  as  it  is  and  never  sub- 
jected to  cross-examination — cannot  be  reconciled  with  that  of 
Maria  Monk's  Daughter.  If  the  one  is  true,  the  other  is  false; 
and  the  most  charitable  view  which  can  be  taken  of  Dr.  Robertson's 
affidavit  is,  that  the  "young  female"  of  whom  he  speaks  was  not 
Maria  Monk. 

Following  Dr.  Robertson,  comes  the  mother  of  Maria  Monk, 
and  her  evidence,  as  published  by  the  Catholic  Truth  Society, 
is  an  amazing  contradiction  of  both  Robertson  and  the  "Daugh- 
ter." The  mother's  affidavit  was  taken  by  Dr.  Robertson  him- 
self, and  is  dated  nearly  a  month  aJiead  of  his.  Yet,  in  his  own 
evidence,  the  Doctor  does  not  mention  Maria's  mother,  nor  any 
of  the  alleged  facts  disclosed  by  her. 

The  mother  states  that  in  August,  1835,  a  man  named  Hoyte 


29 

brought  her  daughter  Maria  Monk  to  Montreal,  and  that  Maria 
then  had  a  child  five  weeks  old.  Hoyte  and  Maria  had  come 
from  New  York  and  put  up  at  the  Goodenough  Tavern.  Hoyte 
was  a  preacher,  and  he  and  two  other  preachers — one  named 
Brewster — endeavored  to  bribe  Maria's  mother  to  swear  that 
Maria  had  been  a  nun. 

There  was  a  Mrs.  Tarbert  who  testified  as  follows : 

"I  knew  the  said  Maria  Monk:  last  spring,  she  told  me  that 
the  father  of  the  child  she  was  then  carrying  was  burned  in  Mr. 
Owsten's  house.  Last  summer  she  came  back  to  my  lodgings 
and  told  me  that  she  had  made  out  the  father  of  her  child.  The 
next  morning  I  found  that  she  was  in  a  house  of  bad  fame,  where 
I  went  for  her. 

Maria  Monk  then  told  me  that  the  father  of  her  child  wanted 
her  to  swear  an  oath  that  would  lose  her  soul  forever. 

I  then  told  Maria,  'Do  not  lose  your  soul  for  money.'  " 

Now  let  us  sum  up  these  three  affidavits : 

In  November,  1834,  three  unnamed  men  prevent  Maria  Monk 
from  jumping  into  the  canal,  and  Dr.  Robertson  flings  her  into 
the  calaboose  with  lewd  women,  "as  a  vagrant."  Nothing  against 
her  can  be  proved,  and  she  is  released  in  a  few  days. 

In  August,  1835,  Maria  comes  to  Montreal  from  New  York, 
with  a  baby,  and  a  man  named  Hoyte;  and  Hoyte,  at  the  insti- 
gation of  the  Devil  and  his  own  wicked  mind,  repeatedly  tempts 
old  Mrs.  Monk,  proposing  to  protect  her  for  life,  if  she  will 
swear  that  Maria  had  been  a  nun.  St.  Bridget  fortifies  the 
virtue  of  old  Mrs.  Monk,  and  she  says  to  Hoyte,  in  effect,  "Get 
behind  me,  Satan." 

Whereupon,  the  repulsed  Hoyte  takes  Maria,  and  retires  into 
a  suburb  of  Montreal,  where  the  two  (and  the  baby)  dwell  to- 
gether in  sinful  satisfaction. 

In  the  Spring  of  1834,  three  months  before  the  Hoyte  epi- 
sode, Maria  Monk  told  Mrs.  Tarbert  that  the  father  of  her  child 
(Maria's)  got  burned  in  Mr.  Owsten's  house;  and  we  must  as- 
sume that  he  was  killed  by  it.  But  "last  Summer" — which  would 
be  June,  July  or  August.  Mrs.  Tarbert  finds  Maria  in  a  house  of 
ill  fame. 

The  priests  who  got  up  this  absurdly  jumbled  booklet  had 
no  skill  in  the  management  of  evidence,  and  no  gift  of  critical 
analysis. 

If  Mrs.  Tarbert  meant  the  Spring  and  Summer  of  1835,  she 
smashes  the  affidavit  of  old  Mrs.  Monk.  But  if  Mrs.  Tarbert 
meant  the  Spring  and  Summer  of  1834,  she  smashes  that  of  Dr. 
Robertson. 

In   October,    1835.    Mrs.   Tarbert   testified   to   where    Maria 


30 

Monk  was  "last  Spring"  and  "last  Summer" ;  and  she  puts  Maria 
in  a  bawdy  house  in  Montreal,  where  the  Monk  family  lived. 

When  one  of  us,  in  October,  says  "last  Spring,"  or  "last 
Summer,"  the  meaning  is  generally  understood  to  be,  those  sea- 
sons of  the  same  year.  In  that  case,  Mrs.  Monk  is  flatly  contra- 
dicted by  Mrs.  Tarbert,  for  if  Maria  was  the  inmate  of  a  brothel 
in  Montreal,  the  Summer  of  1835,  her  mother  could  not  have 
truthfully  sworn  that  she  came  from  New  York,  with  Hoyte, 
the  same  Summer! 

Besides,  a  respectable  hotel,  like  Goodenough's,  would  not 
have  entertained  a  Montreal  courtesan  as  one  of  its  respectable 
guests. 

There  is  one  fact  which  proves  that  Mrs.  Tarbert  meant  the 
Spring  and  Summer  of  1835 :  it  is  the  age  of  the  baby! 

Old  Mrs.  Monk  swears  that  "in  August,  1835,"  the  child  of 
Maria  was  five  weeks  old;  and  Mrs.  Tarbert  swears  that  she  knew 
Maria  was  with  child  in  the  Spring  and  Summer.  Then,  neces- 
sarily, it  was  the  Spring  and  Summer  of  1835. 

But  what  was  Maria  doing  in  a  brothel  when  so  near  con- 
finement? and  how  did  she  go  from  Montreal  to  New  York, 
strike  up  with  Hoyte,  and  reappear  at  Montreal  with  a  five-weeks 
baby  in  August? 

In  the  war  of  affidavits  which  followed  the  publication  of 
the  "Awful  Disclosures,"  the  defenders  of  the  ruined  nun,  were 
neither  few  nor  timid.  I  present  the  more  important  testimonials 
in  her  behalf  : 

First,  there  was  a  statement  signed  by  seven  men  certify- 
ing that  they  were  acquainted  with  Maria  Monk,  and  that  they 
believed  her  revelations  as  to  the  Black  Nunnery  to  be  true.  The 
signers  were  W.  C.  Brownler,  John  J.  Slocum.  Andrew  Bruce, 
D.  Fanshaw,  David  Wesson,  and  Thomas  Hogan. 

Second,  there  was  the  affidavit  of  William  Miller,  which 
follows : 

City  and  County  of  New  York,  ss. 

William  Miller,  being  duly  sworn,  doth  say:  I  knew  Maria  Monk 
when  she  was  quite  a  child,  and  was  acquainted  with  her  father's 
family.  My  father,  Mr.  Adam  Miller,  kept  the  government  school 
at  St.  John's,  Lower  Canada,  for  some  years.  Captain  William 
Monk,  Maria's  father,  lived  in  the  garrison  a  short  distance  from  the 
village,  and  she  attended  the  school  with  me  for  some  months,  proba- 
bly as  much  as  a  year.  Her  four  brothers  also  attended  with  us. 
Our  families  were  on  terms  of  intimacy,  as  my  father  had  a  high 
regard  for  Captain  Monk;  but  the  temper  of  his  wife  was  such,  even 
at  that  time,  as  to  cause  much  trouble.  Captain  Monk  died  very 
suddenly,   as  was   reported,   in   consequence   of   being   poisoned.        Mrs. 


31 

Monk  was  then   keeper   of   the    Government   House   in    Montreal,   and 
received  a  pension  which  privilege  she  has  since  njoyed. 

In  the  summer  of  1832,  I  left  Canada,  and  came  to  this  city.  In 
about  a  year  afterward,  I  visited  Montreal,  and  on  the  day  when 
the  Governor  reviewed  his  troops,  I  believe  about  the  end  of  August, 
I  called  at  the  Government  House,  where  I  saw  Mrs.  Monk  and 
several  of  the  family.  I  inquired  where  Maria  was  and  she  told  me 
that  she  was  in  the  nunnery.  This  fact  I  well  remember,  because 
the  information  gave  me  great  pain,  as  I  had  unfavorable  opinions  of 
the  nunneries. 

On  reading  the  Awful  Disclosures,  I  at  once  knew  she  was  an 
eloped  nun,  but  was  unable  to  find  her  until  a  few  days  since,  when 
we  recognized  each  other  immediately. 

I  give  with  pleasure  my  testimony  in  her  favor,  as  she  is  among 
strangers,  and  exertions  have  been  made  against  her.  I  declare  my 
personal  knowledge  of  many  facts  stated  in  her  book  and  my  full 
belief  in  the  truth  of  her  story,  which  shocking  as  it  is,  cannot  appear 
incredible   in    those    persons   acquainted   with    Canada. 

WILLIAM  MILLER. 

Sworn  before  me,  this  3d  day  of  March,  1836. 

BENJ.  p.  K.  CRAIG, 
Commissioner  of  Deeds. 

No  attempt  was  ever  made  to  impeach  William  Miller.  In 
the  book  of  the  "Daughter,"  he  is  not  mentioned,  nor  is  Cap- 
tain William  Monk  named  at  all.  The  vi^idovir,  Mrs.  William 
Monk,  never  returned  to  contradict  Miller;  and,  yet,  he  had 
mentioned  the  time  and  place  of  inquiry  concerning  the  where- 
abouts of  Maria.  If  the  girl  had  not  gone  to  school  with  Miller 
as  he  testified,  there  would  have  been  no  difficulty  in  proving  him 
a  liar,  by  some  of  the  scholars,  or  by  some  member  of  the 
garrison. 

Third : 

AFFIDAVIT  OF  JOHN  HILLIKER. 
(From  the  New  York  Journal  of  Commerce.) 
"City  and   County  of   New   York,   ss. 

"John  Hilliker,  being  duly  sworn,  doth  depose  and  say  that  one 
day  early  in  the  month  of  May,  1835,  while  shooting  near  the  Third 
avenue,  opposite  the  three-mile  stone,  in  company  with  three  friends, 
I  saw  a  woman  sitting  in  a  field  at  a  short  distance,  who  attracted 
our  attention.  On  reaching  her,  we  found  her  sitting  with  her  head 
down  and  could  not  make  her  return  any  answer  to  our  questions. 
On  raising  her  hat,  we  saw  that  she  was  weeping.  She  was  dressed 
in  an  old  calico  frock  (I  think  of  a  greenish  color),  with  a  checked 
apron,  and  an  old  black  bonnet.  After  much  delay  and  weeping, 
she  began  to  answer  my  questions,  but  not  until  I  had  got  our  com- 
panions to  leave  us,  and  assured  her  that  I  was  a  married  man,  and 
disposed  to  befriend  her. 

"She  then  told  me  that  her  name  was  Maria,  that  she  had  been 
a  nun  in  a  Nunnery  in  Montreal,  from  which  she  had  made  her  escape, 
on  account  of  the  treatment  she  had  received  from  priests  in  that 
institution,  whose  licentious  conduct  she  strongly  intimated  to  me. 
She  mentioned  some  particulars  concerning  the  Convent  and  her  escape. 
She   spoke    particularly   of   a    small   room   where    she    used    to    attend, 


32 

until  the  physician  entered  to  see  the  sick,  when  she  accompanied 
him  to  write  down  his  prescriptions;  and  said  that  she  escaped  through 
a  door  which  he  sometimes  entered.  She  added  that  she  exchanged 
her  dress  after  leaving  the  Nunnery,  and  that  she  came  to  New  York 
in  company  with  a  man,  who  left  her  as  soon  as  the  steamboat  arrived. 
She  further  stated  that  she  expected  soon  to  give  birth  to  a  child, 
having  become  pregnant  in  the  Convent;  that  she  had  no  friend,  and 
knew  not  where  to  find  one;  that  she  thought  of  destroying  her  life; 
and  wished  me  to  leave  her,  saying  that  If  I  should  hear  of  a  woman 
being  drowned  in  the  East  River,  she  earnestly  desired  me  never  to 
speak  of  her. 

"I  asked  if  she  had  had  any  food  that  day,  to  which  she  an- 
swered no;  and  I  gave  her  money  to  get  some  at  the  grocery  of  Mr. 
Cox,  in  the  neighborhood.  She  left  me;  but  I  afterwards  saw  her 
in  the  fields,  going  towards  the  river;  and  after  much  urgency  pre- 
vailed upon  her  to  go  to  a  house  where  I  thought  she  might  be  ac- 
commodated, offering  to  pay  her  expenses.  Failing  in  this  attempt, 
I  persuaded  her,  with  much  difficulty,  to  go  to  the  alms-house;  and 
there  we  got  her  received,  after  I  had  promised  to  call  to  see  her,  as 
she  said  she  had  something  of  great  consequence  which  she  wished 
to  communicate  to  me,  and  wished  me  to  write  a  letter  to  Montreal. 

"She  had  every  appearance  of  telling  the  truth;  so  much  so,  that 
I  have  never  for  a  moment  doubted  the  truth  of  her  story,  but  told 
it  to  many  persons  of  my  acquaintance,  with  entire  confidence  in  its 
truth.  She  seemed  overwhelmed  with  grief,  and  in  a  very  desperate 
state  of  mind.  I  saw  her  weep  for  two  hours  or  more  without  ceasing; 
and  appeared  very  feeble  when  attempting  to  walk,  so  that  two  of 
us  supported  her  by  the  arms.  We  observed,  also,  that  she  always 
folded  her  hands  under  her  apron  when  she  walked,  as  she  described 
the  nuns  as  doing  in  her  'Awful  Disclosures.' 

"I  called  at  the  almshouse  gate  several  times  and  inquired  for 
her,  but,  having  forgotten  half  of  her  name,  I  could  not  make  it 
understood  whom  I  wished  to  see,  and  did  not  see  her  until  last 
week.  When  I  saw  some  of  the  first  extracts  from  her  book  in  a 
newspaper,  I  was  confident  that  they  were  parts  of  her  story,  and 
when  I  read  the  conclusion  of  the  work,  I  had  not  a  doubt  of  it. 
Indeed,  many  things  in  the  course  of  the  book  I  was  prepared  for 
from  what  she  had  told  me. 

"When  I  saw  her,  I  recognized  her  immediately,  although  she 
did  not  know  me  at  first,  being  in  a  very  different  dress.  As  soon 
as  she  was  informed  where  she  had  seen  me,  she  recognizd  me.  I  have 
not  found  in  the  book  anything  inconsistent  with  what  she  had  stated 
to  me  when  I  first  saw  her. 

"When  I  first  found  her  in  May,  1835,  she  had  evidently  sought 
concealment.  She  had  a  letter  in  her  hand,  which  she  refused  to  let 
me  see;  and  when  she  found  I  was  determined  to  remove  her,  she 
tore  it  in  small  pieces,  and  threw  them  down.  Several  days  after  I 
visited  the  spot  again  and  picked  them  up,  to  learn  something  of  the 
contents,  but  could  find  nothing  intelligible,  except  the  first  part  of 
the  signature,  'Maria.' 

"Of  the  truth  of  her  story,  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt,  and  I 
think  I  never  can  until  the  Nunnery  is  opened  and  examined. 

"JOHN    HILLIKER. 

"Sworn  before  me,  this  14th  day  of  March,  1835. 

"PETER  JENKINS, 
"Commissioner    of    Deeds." 


33 

The  Protestant  I'hidicator,  of  New  York,  took  up  the  cause 
of  the  persecuted  woman,  and  pubhshed  a  challenge  to  the  very 
priests  whose  names  had  been  mentioned  by  Maria  Monk.  That 
dare  to  the  Romanists  appeared  on  April  6,  1836. 

It  was  addressed  to  the  Roman  Prelate  and  Priests  of  Mon- 
treal— Messrs.  Conroy,  Quarter  and  Schneller,  of  New  York — 
Messrs.  Fenwick  and  Byrne,  of  Boston — Mr.  Hughes,  of  Phila- 
delphia—the Arch-Prelate  of  Baltimore,  and  his  subordinate 
priests,  and  also  to  Bishop  England,  of  Charleston,  South  Carolina. 
The  terms  of  the  challenge  were : 

"To  meet  an  investigation  of  the  truth  of  Maria  Monk's  'Awful 
Disclosures,'  before  an  impartial  assembly,  over  vi^hich  shall  preside 
seven  gentlemen;  three  to  be  selected  by  the  Roman  priests,  three  by 
the  executive  committee  of  the  New  York  Protestant  Association,  and 
the  seventh  as  chairman  to  be  chosen  by  the  six. 

"An  eligible  place  in  New  York  shall  be  appointed  and  the  regu- 
lations for  the  decorum  and  order  of  the  meetings  with  all  the  other 
arrangements,  shall  be  made  by  the  above  gentlemen. 

All  communications  upon  this  subject  from  any  of  the  Roman 
priests  or  nuns,  either  individually,  or  as  delegates  for  their  superi- 
ors, addressed  to  the  Corresponding  Secretary  of  the  New  York 
Protestant  Association,  No.  142  Nassau  street.  New  York,  will  be 
promptly  answered." 

This  challenge  was  published  for  several  weeks,  and  nobody 
ventured  to  accept  it.  Afraid  of  a  show-down,  afraid  to  meet 
the  woman  they  had  so  foully  wronged,  the  Romanists  slunk 
back  in  guilty  silence,  preferring  to  trust  to  their  favorite  weapons, 
slanders,  abuse,  falsehoods,  denials,  and  defamation  of  character. 

What  hope  of  fair  treatment  could  Maria  Monk  cherish, 
when  her  traducers  are  the  same  that  seek  to  defile  the  purity 
of  Martin  Luther  and  his  wife? 

The  challenge  of  the  Protestant  Vindicator  was  accompanied 
by  the  following  editorial : 

"THE  CHALLENGE. — We  have  been  waiting  with  no  small 
degree  of  impatience  to  hear  from  some  of  the  Roman  priests.  But 
neither  they,  nor  their  sisters,  the  nuns,  nor  one  of  their  nephews 
or  nieces,  have  yet  ventured  to  come  out.  Our  longings  meet  only 
with  disappointment.  Did  ever  any  person  hear  of  similar  conduct 
on  the  part  of  men  accused  of  the  highest  crimes,  in  their  deepest  dye? 
Here  is  a  number  of  Roman  priests,  as  actors,  or  accessories,  openly 
denounced  before  the  world  as  guilty  of  the  most  outrageous  sins 
against  the  sixth  and  seventh  commandments.  They  are  charged 
before  the  world  with  adultery,  fornication,  and  murder!  The  alle- 
gations are  distinctly  made,  the  place  is  mentioned,  the  parties  are 
named,  and  the  time  is  designated;  for  it  is  lasting  as  the  annual  re- 
volutions of  the  seasons.  And  what  is  most  extraordinary — the  highest 
official  authorities  in   Canada  know   that  all  these   statements  are   true. 


34 

and  they  sanction  and  connive  at  the  iniquity!  The  priests  and  nuns 
have  been  offered,  for  several  months  past,  the  most  easy  and  certain 
mode  to  disprove  the  felonies  imputed  to  them,  and  they  are  still  as 
the  dungeons  of  the  inquisition,  silent  as  the  deah-like  quietude  of  the 
Convent  cell;  and  as  retired  as  if  they  w^ere  in  the  subterraneous  pas- 
sages betwreen  the  Nunnery  and  Lartique's  habitation.  Now,  we 
contend,  that  scarcely  a  similar  instance  of  disregard  for  the  opinions 
of  mankind,  can  be  found  since  the  Reformation,  at  least,  in  a  Pro- 
testant country.  Whatever  disregard  for  the  judgment  of  others, 
the  Romish  priests  may  have  felt,  where  the  inquisition  was  at  their 
command,  and  the  civil  power  was  their  Jackal  and  their  Hyena;  they 
have  been  obliged  to  pay  some  little  regard  to  the  opinion  of  Pro- 
testants, and  to  the  dread  of  exposure.  We  therefore  repeat  the 
solemn  indubitable  truth — that  the  facts  which  are  stated  by  Maria 
Monk,  respecting  the  Hotel  Dieu  Nunnery  at  Montreal,  are  true  as  the 
existence  of  the  priests  and  nuns — that  the  character,  principles,  and 
practices  of  the  Jesuits  and  nuns  in  Canada  are  most  accurately  de- 
lineated— that  popish  priests,  and  sisters  of  charity  in  the  United 
States,  are  their  faithful  and  exact  counterparts — that  many  female 
schools  in  the  United  States,  kept  by  the  papist  teachers,  are  nothing 
more  than  places  of  decoy  through  which  young  women,  at  the  most 
delicate  age,  are  ensnared  into  the  power  of  the  Roman  priests — that 
the  toleration  of  the  monastic  system  in  the  United  States  and  Britain, 
the  only  two  countries  in  the  world,  in  which  that  unnatural  abomina- 
tion is  now  extending  its  withering  influence,  is  high  treason  against 
God  and  mankind.  If  American  citizens  and  British  Christians,  after 
the  appalling  developments  which  have  been  made,  permit  the  con- 
tinuance of  that  prodigious  wickedness  which  is  inseparable  from 
Nunneries  and  the  celibacy  of  popish  priests,  they  will  ere  long  ex- 
perience that  divine  castigation  which  is  justly  due  to  transgressors 
who  wilfully  trample  upon  all  the  appointments  of  God,  and  who 
subvert  the  foundation  of  national  concord  and  extinguish  the  com- 
forts of  domestic  society.  Listen  to  the  challenge  again!  All  the 
papers  with  which  the  Protestant  Vindicator  exchanges,  are  requested 
to  give  the  challenge  one  or  more  than  one  insertion."  (Here  it  was 
repeated.) 

(Jther  testimonials  purporting  to  come  from  schoolmates  and 
acquaintances  of  Maria  Mank  were  published,  and  vouched  for 
by  the  Protestant  Vindicator,  which  was  in  possession  of  the 
names  of  the  witnesses ;  but,  as  there  is  no  way  for  me  to  learn 
these  names.  I  exclude  that  part  of  the  record. 

As  already  stated,  the  Catholic  paper.  Sunday  Visitor,  which 
has  the  largest  general  circulation  claimed  by  any  papal  organ, 
published  an  extremely  bold  article  by  the  Jesuit,  M.  J.  Walsh, 
roundly  denying  the  Maria  Monk  story,  and  affirming  that  there 
never  had  been  sucii  a  case.  In  other  words,  no  woman  had  ever 
been  wronged  in  a  convent  in  the  manner  described  by  Maria 
Monk. 

As  nunneries  have  existed  for  a  thousand  years,  confining 
millions  of  women  in  a  forlorn  state  of  helplessness,  and  giv- 
ing millions  of  bachelor  priests  imlimited  power  over  these  im- 


35 

prisoned  women,  you  will  at  once  realize  how  comprehensive 
is  the  statement  of  Walsh.  If  not  a  single  one  of  those  Maria 
Monks  was  ever  wronged  by  the  unmarried  men  who  had  access 
to  them,  much  false  evidence  has  been  given  by  Popes,  Councils, 
Bishops,  priests,  monks.  Sisters,  and  Romanist  writers. 

The  Jesuit  Walsh  cited  Appleton's  Encyclopedia,  wherein 
Maria  Monk,  he  said,  was  rated  as  an  impostor.  I  happened 
to  have  a  copy  of  the  original  edition  of  that  work,  issued  in  the 
year^  1856,  and  Maria  Monk's  name  is  not  mentioned.  It  had 
no  right  to  a  place  there,  for  the  reason  that  she  is  not  a  historic 
character.  A  poor,  ruined,  flung-adrift  nun,  hounded  by  the 
relentless  wolves  of  Rome— what  business  had  her  name  in  a 
Cyclopedia  of  illustrious  men  and  women?  None  of  the  bio- 
graphical dictionaries  or  encyclopedias  mentioned  Maria  Monk — 
until  zvhenf  Not  until  recent  years  when  Rome  systematically 
set  to  work  to  re-write  history,  re-write  encyclopedias,  re-write 
school-books,  and  to  even  emasculate  Protestant  literature. 

Thus  it  happens  that  in  1888.  the  Appleton  Encyclopedia 
of  Biography  does  mention  Maria  Monk  as  an  impostor.  A 
Romanist  writer  compiled  that  libel,  and  Romanist  money  no 
('oubt  paid  for  the  space  it  occupies.  Even  the  Encyclopedia 
Brittanica  has  knelt  to  Rome,  a)id  the  Jesuits  have  written  thirty 
of  the  articles  for  the  11th  edition  of  that  deteriorating  work. 

Probably  Maria  Monk  will  now  figure  in  the  Brittanica,  and 
of  course  she  will  appear  as  an  impostor. 

In  making  a  reply  to  W^ilsh  in  The  Jeffersonian,  I  stated  that 
the  Romanists  waited  for  the  death  of  all  the. witnesses,  before 
they  began  to  doctor  the  books,  and  to  deny  that  there  ever  was 
a  Maria  Monk  case.  My  statement  brought  forth  two  letters 
which  show  how  nearly  correct  the  Romanists  were  in  presuming 
that  Time  had  mowed  down  all  of  those  who  personally  knew  the 
unfortunate  victim  of  the  Black  Nunnery. 

The  first  is  from  G.  Major  Taber,  of  Los  Angeles,  Cali- 
fornia : 

My  Dear  PIditor:  In  your  issue  of  March  9th,  I  notice  that  a 
Jesuit  by  the  name  of  Walsh  claims  "There  never  was  a  Maria  Monk 
case. ' 

Now,  Mr.  Editor,  if  you  will  courteously  allow  me  to  have  a  friendly 
chat  with  the  readers  of  The  Jeffersonian,  as  I  desire  to  present  a  few 
tacts  relatmg  to  the  above,  and  being  from  a  personal  knowledge  and 
observation,  ought  to  settle  the  question  as  to  the  facts  in  the  above 
case. 

When  a  young  mail  of  eighteen,  I  travelled  through  nearly  every 
city   and    village   from    Quebec   to   Ottawa   as   a    Daguerrian   artist    for 


36 


over  three  years,  and   have  taken   pictures  of  dead   nuns   in   their   con- 
vents. 

In  1850  I  resided  for  six  months  in  a  village  opposite  Montreal, 
where  Maria  Monk  was  born,  and  where  her  family  lived,  and  I  made 
special  inquiry  of  an  old  Catholic  who  had  known  her  from  childhood, 
if  Maria  Monk  had  told  the  truth  in  her  book.  His  answer  was: 
"There  is  no  doubt  about  it." 

I  learned  also  that  when  the  sewers  of  the  "Hotel  Dieu"  nunnery 
were  cleaned  out,  that  scores  of  infant  skulls  and  bones  were  dis- 
covered. 

Not   only   that,    but    I    learned    that   there   was   a    change   made    in 


A  WELL-KNOWN  PRIEST. 


all  of  the  rooms  of  the  nunnery,  in  the  attempt  to  disprove  the  descrip- 
tion she  had  given  in  her  book. 

Now,  gentle  reader,  I  have  no  licsitation  in  claiming  that,  if  this 
Jesuit  Walsh  asserts  that  the  "Maria  Monk  case  was  a  fabrication," 
he  is  either  an  ignoramus  or  a  liar,  as  I  know  from  personal  knowledge 
from  Catholics  not  long  after,  and  during  the  year  1850,  that  she  did 
not   misrepresent   the   facts   claimed   in   her   book. 

Allow  me  to  state  further  that  when  in  Montreal  at  one  time  I 
winessed  a  long  string  of  "Pietists"  marching  through  the  street,  and 
because  I  failed  to  doff  my  hat,  and  bow  my  head  when  they  passed, 
a  Catholic  police  scoundrel  rapped  me  on  my  head  with  his  billy.  That's 
Catholicism.     How   would   you   have   liked    such    treatment? 

In  order   for   the   readers   of   The   Jeffersonian    to    learn   what    re- 


Z7 

liance  they  may  have  as  to  my  reHabihty,  allow  me  to  state,  with 
usual  modesty,  that,  although  a  Northern  man,  I  spent  over  three 
years  in  the  employ  of  Uncle  Sam,  and  five  years  as  a  resident  of 
Decatur,  Alabama.  I  purchased  the  first  plantation  sold  to  a  North- 
ern man  after  the  war,  in  1865,  and  raised  cotton  for  three  years.  I 
know  the  Southern  people  well,  and  they  were  among  my  best 
friends. 

While  there  I  wrote  articles  for  the  Georgia  Cultivator  on  the 
history  and  management  of  the  honey  bee.  And,  more  than  that, 
in  November,  1777,  my  grandfather,  Thomas  Taber,  married  Hanna 
Davis,  who  resided  in  Vermont  with  her  brother,  Timothy  Davis, 
and  their  cousin,  Jefferson  Davis,  often  visited  them  when  a  young 
man.       I  know  to  be  true,  as  my  oldest  brother  knew  them  well. 

Pardon  me,  Mr.  Editor,  for  my  long  article,  for  I  realize  that 
the  efforts,  in  many  respects,  of  the  last  three  Presidents  for  political 
purposes,  have  catered  to  a  class  who  are  tools  to  an  old  "Petticoat" 
who  dares  not  show  himself  outside  a  walled  and  well-guarded  prison. 

Los  Angeles,  Calif.  G.  MAJOR  TABER. 

The  second  is  froin  Captain  W.  M.  Somerville,  an  old  sailor 
who  is  now  at  the  Snug  Harbor,  and  whose  name  was  furnished 
me  by  Dr.  A.  P.  English,  of  Jacksonville,  Florida: 

Sailors'   Snug  Harbor,   New   Brighton, 
Staten    Island,   N.   Y.,   March    16,    1916. 
Hon.  Thomas  E.  Watson,  Thomson,  Ga. 

Dear  Sir:  Your  communication  of  the  13th  inst.  duly  received 
yesterday  with  enclosure,  which  I  had  already  read.  Dr.  English,  of 
Jacksonville,  having  sent  it  to  me.  I  am  afraid  that  the  Doctor  has 
led  you  to  expect  rather  too  much  of  me,  and  rather  than  dicate 
what  I  know  of  Maria  Monk  to  a  stenographer.  I  will  just  write  it, 
and  if  you  find  anything  in  it  that  will  be  of  use  to  you  in  this  con- 
troversy you  can  have  it  typewritten  and  return  it  to  me  for  attes- 
tation. 

I  married  a  lady  in  Montreal  in  1862  who  was  born  and  brought 
up  beside  Maria  Monk  and  her  parents  in  LaPrairie,  opposite  Montreal, 
on  the  south  side  of  the  St. Lawrence.  She  never  doubted  the  truth 
and  correctness  of  Maria  Monk's  book.  I  have  it  in  my  home  in 
Florida,  and  have  had  it  for  fifty  years,  but  was  always  under  the 
impression  that  it  was  written  by  Maria  Monk  herself.  My  wife  died 
of  yellow  fever  in  Florida  in  1888  or  I  would  have  consulted  her  and 
obtained  more  definite  information  of  the  Monk  family.  But  as  far 
as  I  recollect,  she  told  me  that  they  were  English  and  Episcopalians, 
and  were  in  connection  with  a  regiment  of  British  soldiers  stationed 
at  that  time  in  LaPrairie. 

I  knew  John  Monk,  a  relative  of  Maria  Monk,  who  had  his  office 
in  Little  St.  James,  North  Montreal,  and  was  the  lawyer  for  my 
brother-in-law,  C.  McAdam,  a  bookseller  of  whom  I  purchased  Maria 
Monk's  book.  I  did  not  know  anything  of  her  daughter,  Mrs.  Eckel, 
nor  of  the  last  days  of  Maria  Monk,  nor  of  her  death.  Neither  do  I 
know  anything  of  Col.  W.  L.  Stone,  nor  of  his  visit  to  Montreal. 

I  remember  seeing  the  underground  vaults  of  the  Hotel  Dieu,  on 
N.  Hospice  Street,  when  it  was  torn  down  to  make  room  for  a  nice 
row  of  commercial  buildings  belonging  to  the  nuns,  which  of  course 
paid  no  taxes. 


38 

When  I  was  sailing  to  Montreal  we  used  to  carry  large  carboys 
of  vitriol  which  was  said  to  have  been  for  use  by  the  nuns  in  de- 
stroying the  bodies  of  those  novices  who  refused  to  surrender  their 
bodies  to  the  lust  of  the  visiting  priests.  We  had  to  carry  such  carboys 
on  deck. 

I  lived  seven  years  in  Montreal,  and  never  heard  Maria  Monk's 
history  questioned,   far  less   denied. 

During  the  summer  months  there  was  a  woman  who  made  regu- 
larly three  trips  a  week  to  Quebec  and  brought  up  four  babies  in  the 
clothes  baskets  for  the  Grey  Nunnery,  which  also  had  an  unlocked 
gate  on  McGill  M.  provided  with  a  receptacle  to  receive  babies  from 
whomsoever  might  place  them  in  it.  The  receipt  of  such  strange  babies, 
of  course,  covered  the  well-known  fact  of  those  born  to  the  nuns  of 
the  institution. 

St.  Piere  Island,  in  the  St.  Lawrence,  above  the  Victoria  Bridge, 
belonged  to  the  nuns,  on  which  was  a  large  house  popularly  known  as 
the  Breeding  Cage,  where  the  nuns  were  sent  for  their   confinement. 

Consecrating  the  Womb  of  the  Bride. — I  can  remember  when  a 
boy,  seven  years  ago,  hearing  a  highlander  from  Inverness,  Scotland, 
telling  his  comrades  of  having  been  at  a  Roman  Catholic  wedding  in 
a  hotel  when  the  priest  took  the  bride  to  a  bedroom  upstairs  to  con- 
secrate her  womb  before  he  would  perform  the  marriage  ceremony; 
and  when  I  lived  in  Ottawa,  in  1860,  I  knew  a  lumberman  who  was 
wealthy,  and  was  commonly  reported  in  his  neighborhood  to  have  paid 
a  large  sum  to  the  priest  to  allow  him  to  have  his  bride  to  himself. 

Yours  faithfully, 

W.  M.  SOMMERVILLE. 

So  much  has  been  said  by  the  Romanists  to  discredit  Maria 
Monk's  statements  in  regard  to  secret  passages,  secret  cham- 
bers, and  secret  crimes  in  the  Black  Ntmnery,  that  I  will  lay 
before  you  an  exact  description  of  the  secret  rooms  of  the 
Inquisition,  near  the  Pope's  palace,  in  Rome — not  "the  Spanish 
Inquisition,"  but  the  Italian.  It  is  taken  from  Dr.  Theodore 
Dwight's  History  of  the  Roman  Republic  of  1849,  Chapter  XII, : 

The  Opening  of  the  Inquisition  of  Rome. — Feelings  of  the  People  on 
Entering  It. — The  Edifice. — Its  History. — Divisions. 

The  following  account  of  it  is  translated  from  "L' Italia  del  Popola," 
and  was  written  by  a  distinguished  writer,  F.  De  Boni,  an  eye-witness, 
of  what  he  describes. 

Near  the  Vatican  Square,  between  the  Church  of  St.  Peter  and 
the  Castle  of  Saint  Angelo,  extends  a  street  which  bears  a  melan- 
choly name:  "Via  della  Inquisizione" — The  Street  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion. There  that  tribunal  resides,  which  makes  the  altar  a  stepping- 
stone  to  the  prison. 

In  that  street  multitudes  of  people  daily  crowded  in  March  and 
April  of  1849,  and  passed  through  the  spacious  edifice  to  which  it  leads, 
uttering  imprecations  and  maledictions  as  they  returned,  then  silently 
dispersed  to  their  homes,  with  indignation,  fear  and  horror  contending 
in  their  breasts.  Sometimes  a  shout  might  be  heard,  a  cry  of  "Vila 
la  Republica!"  and  then  a  hundred  voices  would  reply:  for  a  Viva  then 
expressed,  to  every  heart,  a  malediction  on  the  past  and  a  hope  of  the 
future. 


39 

Falsehoods  and  calumnies  have  been  published  respecting  this 
subject.  For  the  sake  of  truth,  then,  let  us  register,  in  the  following 
pages,  the  memory  of  facts,  which  will  afford  assistance  in  tracing 
the  picture  of  the  Italian  revolution.  Being  sure  of  triumph,  we  are 
not  impatient.  Let  us  for  the  present  consign  over  our  vengeance  to 
history. 

On  the  4th  of  April,  1849,  the  government  of  the  Republic  (that 
is,  the  Assembly  and  Executive  power),  moved  by  a  sentiment  of 
justice  and  Christian  compassion,  having  established,  on  the  ruins  of 
the  papal  tyranny,  the  legitimate  reign  of  brotherly  equality,  decreed 
that  the  houses  of  the  Holy  Office  should  become  the  habitations 
of  poor  families,  who  had  only  miserable  dwellings,  in  unhealthy  and 
confined  quarters  of  Rome.  And  in  order  to  teach,  in  a  practical 
manner,  that  idleness  leads  to  misery,  and  to  cultivate  a  love  of  labor, 
self-respect  and  self-dependence,  the  government  did  not  grant  the 
apartments  gratuitously,  but  required  the  payment  of  small  sums,  in 
amounts  and  ways  within  the  reach  of  all,  at  the  end  of  each  month. 

They  intended  thus  to  cancel,  on  a  republican  plan,  the  remains 
of  ancient  tyranny,  by  consecrating  to  beneficience  what  papal  severity 
had  devoted  to  torture. 

Consequently  the  Holy  Office,  which  for  three  centuries  had  been 
closed,  except  to  the  victims  of  suspicion,  and  the  martyrs  of  liberty 
and  conscience,  whom  it  buried  in  prison,  or  gave  to  the  flames,  was 

thrown  open  to  the  people.  Crowds  entered  it  day  after  day,  and  were 
excited  by  the  deepest  emotions,  at  the  terrible  spectacle.  Within  these 
walls  the  people  took  their  most  solemn  abjurations  against  the  clerical 
orders,  and  repeated  from  their  hearts  the  oath  against  the  govern- 
ment of  the  priests.  The  people  can  reason  clearly;  and,  in  those 
religious  prisons,  they  better  understood  the  necessity  of  rejecting 
the  pastor  who  bears  a  sword  instead  of  a  crook,  and  more  admired 
and  loved  the  gentle  doctrine  of  the  Nazarene,  while  shuddering  at  the 
tortures  inflicted  in  his  name.  By  seeing  the  effects  of  the  dominion 
of  the  clerical  system,  they  understood  the  cruelty  which  had  enforced 
the  creed  of  the  Catholic  primate  in  Italy.  They  saw  his  hand  apply- 
ing instruments  of  blood,  guided  by  barbarous  zeal,  sacrilegious  am- 
bition and  ignorance.  The  knowledge  of  the  people  is  all  in  the 
heart.  By  calling  to  mind  the  past,  in  their  imagination,  they  de- 
picted the  horrible  scenes  which  had  occured  within  those  walls  year 
after  year;  felt  in  their  own  hearts  the  agonies  endured  by  men,  who  had 
disdained  to  sell  their  consciences  for  the  price  of  their  blood,  al- 
though ignorant  of  their  history  and  even  of  their  names.  With  rage 
and  imprecations,  they  made  the  circuit  of  those  apartments,  prisons 
and  subterranean  passages,  which  had  heard  so  many  groans,  wit- 
nessed so  many  tears  and  sorrows,  swallowed  up  so  many  victims  and 
been  the  mysterious  centre  of  that  universal  religious  despotism,  which, 
with  subtle  chains,  not  yet  destroyed,  bound  down  all  Europe,  and  in 
the  latest  centuries  has  sustained  civil  tyranny.  The  spectators  per- 
haps sometimes,  thinking  they  were  dreaming,  and  feeling  as  if  not 
secure,  would  look  behind  them,  fearing  to  see  a  Father  Inquisitor 
appear,  and  in  revenge  for  their  profanation,  shut  the  door  of  those 
horrid  prisons. 

And  what  awful  scenes  did  history  bring  up  to  the  mind,  to  those 
who  passed  through  those  dismal  halls. 

From  this  place  so  near  the  Vatican,  issued  the  orders  for  the 
slaughter   of  the   Jews   and   the   last    Mussulmans   in    Spain.        Within 


40 

this  building  was  decreed  the  murder  of  the  Waldenses  in  the  Guardia 
of  Lombardy  and  the  Subalpine  ValHes;  here  Galileo  was  tortured,  the 
imprisonment  of  Gianone  was  ordered,  Pasquali  was  condemned  to  the 
flames,  as  well  as  Carnesecchi,  Paleario  and  Giordano  Bruno.  Here 
were  planned  the  murder  of  the  Ugonotti  and  the  horrors  of  Flanders. 
Here  the  censorship  was  organized,  war  was  made  against  the  printing 
press,  a  holy  act  was  pronounced  treason,  and  attempts  were  made 
to  chain  the  mind.  But  that  Prometheus  has  now  broken  its  bonds, 
and  the  world  is  going  on  under  its  influence.  From  this  place  pro- 
ceeded the  mysterious  orders  which  sent  at  once,  to  all  parts  of  Europe, 
unarmed  but  formidable  legions  of  men,  towards  the  same  object. 
Here  was  thrown  out  an  immense  net,  which  confined,  in  the  same 
meshes  the  monarch  and  the  peasant;  which  transformed  the  wife  into 
the  accuser  of  her  husband,  the  son  into  the  betrayer  of  his  father. 
Here  was,  and  will  soon  be  again,  the  whispering  gallery  of  all  Europe. 
But  how  long  shall  it  last? 

He  that  enters  this  building,  and  is  not  utterly  ignorant  of  history, 
must  be  moved  with  deep  emotions,  amidst  the  stench  of  putrid 
corpses,  and  cannot  but  take  an  oath  for  the  cause  of  the  people,  while 
he  thinks  of  the  humane  doctrines  of  Christ,  who  pardoned,  while 
dying  for  his  enemies.  We  will  now  endeavor  to  describe  the  edi- 
fices, as  memory  enables  us,  not  as  they  formerly  had  been,  but  as 
they  were  when  seen  by  the  Roman  people  in  the  month  of  April, 
1849. 

The  edifice  of  the  Holy  Roman  Inquisition  was  erected  in  part 
about  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century,  of  simple  and  secure 
architecture,  as  much  as  was  required  by  the  times,  when  taste,  pre- 
serving a  trace  of  the  dying  popular  greatness,  was  declining.  The 
present  remains  of  it  do  not  show  what  the  interior  was  in  those  times, 
when  the  imprisonment  of  Lutherans  was  demanded.  It  is  presumed 
by  some,  that  the  edifice  rests  its  walls  upon  a  prison  of  Nero. 

This  great  fabric  may  be  divided  into  three  parts,  having  the 
form  of  two  rectangular  buildings  and  a  trapezium  united.  The  first 
rectangular  part,  which  fronts  the  street,  originally  belonged  to  a 
Cardinal;  and  Pius  V.  gave  it  to  the  Inquisition,  who  added  a  num- 
ber of  cells.  It  has  little  ornament  on  the  front,  and  only  two  stories, 
each  with  a  loggiato,  or  gallery,  with  columns  of  the  Tuscan  order, 
if  my  memory  is  correct.  The  second  rectangular  part,  which  is  con- 
structed in  like  manner,  differs  only  in  being  of  smaller  dimensions 
and  more  simple.  It  had  originally  two  stories  and  two  galleries; 
the  lower  of  which,  in  the  former  half  of  the  seventeenth  century,  was 
shut  in  to  make  new  prisons,  the  greater  part  of  the  subterranean 
cells  probably  being  then  abandoned.  Perhaps  at  the  same  time 
another  story  was  built,  where  new  prisons  were  formed,  the  only 
ones  which  in  our  age  have  received  prisoners,  in  this  second  rectangle. 
The  remaining  part,  served  in  all  probability,  for  the  family  of  the 
Holy  Office,  where  no  other  persons  could  enter.  This  third  part 
remained  incomplete,  wanting  the  left  wing;  and  the  right  wing  is  not 
finished.  A  high  wall  extends  transversely,  to  exclude  from  human 
view  the  horrid  mysteries  which,  for  three  centuries,  were  performed 
in  that  populous  tomb. 

In  the  month  of  March  (1849),  the  government  of  the  Republic 
ordered  accomodations  for  stables  for  the  national  artillery,  and  ap- 
propriated a  part  of  the  Inquisition,  under  the  closed  gallery  of  the 
second    court.        There    the    Father    Inquisitor,    a    Dominican,    resided, 


41 

whom  in  the  great  fervor  of  disdain,  no  one  offended.  He  offered 
no  other  resistance  to  the  will  of  the  Government,  but  a  protest;  and 
he  was  allowed  to  protect.  In  order  to  obtain  a  place  to  stable  the 
horses,  a  space  was  opened  in  the  walls;  when  the  workmen  discovered 
an  aperture.  The  ardent  curiosity  which  had  always,  up  to  that  time, 
surrounded  everything  relating  to  the  Holy  Office,  and  the  hatred 
against  the  government  of  the  priests,  suspended  their  labors.  The 
rubbish  was  removed,  they  descended  into  a  small  subterranean  place, 
damp,  without  light  or  passage  out,  with  no  floor  but  a  blackish 
oleagenous  earth  resembling  that  of  a  cemetery.  Here  and  there 
scattered  about  pieces  of  garments,  of  ancient  fashions — the  clothes 
of  unfortunate  persons,  who  had  been  thrown  down  from  above,  and 
died  of  wounds,  or  hunger.  A  baiocco  (or  penny)  of  Pius  7th,  was 
picked  up,  which  probably  denotes  the  epoch  when  that  abode  of  dark- 
ness and  despair  was  walled  up.  The  rich  soil  had  hardly  begun  to 
be  removed,  before  human  bones  were  uncovered  in  some  places, 
with  some  very  long  locks  of  hair,  which  had  doubtless  ornamented 
the  heads  of  females.  The  hands  trembled,  as  well  as  the  hearts  of 
those  who  went  on  to  uncover  and  collect  tliose  funeral  reliques.  What 
temples  had  been  shaded  by  those  tresses?  what  opinions  had  been 
their  crime?  who  had  sent  spies  to  seize  these  victims?  who  can 
answer  the  questions?  who  will  ever  be  able?  Poor  martyrs  of  ig- 
norance and  fanaticism,  torn  perhaps  from  the  mother's  arms  to  be 
thrown  into  a  cloister,  and  from  the  cloister  into  such  a  dungeon, 
without  light  or  door;  still  young  and  beautiful!  These  locks  of  hair 
were  dishevelled  in  their  agonies  of  death,  and  there  they  expired,  dis- 
consolate, forgotten  by  the  world,  without  a  kiss  from  a  friend,  without 
receiving  a  sigh  or  a  tear,  or  even  a  handful  of  dust  upon  their  corpses. 

Many  of  the  spectators  carried  away  pieces  of  the  earth  and  hair, 
as  amulets  against  the  tyranny  of  the  Pope.  It  is  certain  that  the 
"Trap-door"  swallowed  victims  of  whom  it  was  important  to  the  Holy 
Office  to  destroy  all  traces,  because  the  Foro,  or  Judgment-hall  is 
over  it,  in  the  second  story  of  the  first  edifice,  and  it  is  exactly  under 
the  vestibule  of  the  chamber  of  the  "Second  Father  Companion,"  which 
adjoined  the  Hall  of  the  Tribunal. 

The  other  modern  prisons  are  contiguous  to  the  last  court,  which 
has  been  converted  into  a  garden.  Each  of  those  prisons  is  a  very 
small  cell,  capable  of  containing  only  a  single  person,  being  in  two 
stories  and  all  alike.  They  are  accessible  from  an  exceedingly  nar- 
row corridor,  like  the  cells  of  a  convent.  The  walls  of  this  passage 
are  everywhere  covered  with  pictures,  and  inscriptions  commenting 
upon  them,  which  intimate  the  horrid  nature  of  the  institution  and  hold 
up  to  view  the  severest  dogmas  of  the  Catholic  religion,  not  inter- 
preted in  a  spirit  of  forgiveness.  So  well  does  the  Court  of  Rome 
know  how  to  confine  pardon  to  heaven.  At  every  step,  and  near 
every  door,  the  solemn  figure  of  Christ  confronts  you,  not  painted 
according  to  representations  of  the  Gospel,- — not  as  if  affected  more 
by  sympathizing  sorrow  for  men  than  for  himself:  but  in  corres- 
pondence with  the  system  of  the  Inquisition,  as  if  threatening  from 
the  cross.  On  every  side  are  scripture  passages  and  mottos,  which 
sentence  to  eternal  flames  the  hardened  sinner.  Yet  the  most  tre- 
mendous  inscriptions  were   erased   after   the   flight   of   the   Pope. 

There,  where  the  French  government  has  placed  the  correctional 
prisoners,  monks  and  friars  had  prisons  in  the  Holy  Office.  The 
cells  were  furnished  with  beds;   and   there   the   greatest   disorder   and 


42 

filth  everywhere  prevailed.  Here  and  there  were  worn-out  cushions, 
coverlets,  chairs  and  tables,  and  old  clothes  of  prisoners  who  died 
in  the  cells  many  years  ago.  In  a  certain  very  small  cell  were  things 
which  indicated  horrible  secrets:  a  piece  of  a  woman's  handkerchief, 
of  large  size,  and  an  old  bonnet  of  a  girl  about  ten  years  old.  Poor 
little  child!  What  offence,  perhaps  unknown  to  you,  could  it  have 
been,  which  threw  you  into  the  place  and  destroyed  the  innocent  peace 
of  your  infantile  years;  which  taught  you  to  weep  in  the  season  of 
smiles,  and  perhaps  deprived  you  of  your  dear  and  early  life.  In 
another  cell  were  found  four  sandals,  and  several  nuns'  cords,  a  little 
spindle,  caskets  containing  needles,  crucifixes,  and  unfinished  stockings, 
with  the  knitting-needles  still  well-pointed,  and  an  infant's  coach. 

And  so,  in  almost  every  one  of  the  prison-rooms  were  to  be  seen 
clothes,  ornaments  and  other  relics  of  their  former  occupants;  and 
as  everything  was  wrapt  in  deep  and  mournful  mystery,  the  imag- 
inations of  the  people  recalled  ancient  tragical  stories,  and  they 
wept  over  the  misfortunes  of  persons  of  whose  names  they  were  ig- 
norant. 

The  walls  of  all  the  cells  were  covered  with  inscriptions,  some  of 
which  expressed  despairing  grief,  but  most  of  them  resignation,  even 
in  that  abode,  and  under  the  sufferings  inflicted  there,  so  well  fitted 
to  becloud  the  mind,  to  terrify  the  boldest  heart  and  to  bend  the  most 
iron  will. 

Under  the  two  courts  subterranean  apartments  abounded,  com- 
municating with  each  other.  A  few  only  were  solitary;  and  to  those 
there  was  only  one  way  of  access,  viz.,  a  trap-door,  which  denoted 
death!  Some  of  them  were  prisons  at  first,  and  afterwards  converted 
into  store-rooms.  To  their  ceilings  were  still  fastened  iron  rings 
which  formerly  served  to  give  to  the  Question  (torture!)  and  after- 
wards to  suspend  provisions.  In  one  cell  on  the  ground  floor,  in  the 
second  building,  a  square  piece  of  marble  was  observed  in  the  floor, 
which  looked  like  the  cover  of  a  hole.  It  was  raised,  and  beneath 
was  a  vault,  which  proved  to  be  a  Vade  in  pace  (go  in  peace —  that  is, 
a  place  of  silent  death).  Not  a  ray  of  light  ever  could  have  entered, 
except  when  that  funeral  marble  was  lifted  for  a  moment,  and  then  it 
soon  again  fell,  over  the  head  of  the  condemned  person,  who  was  left 
to  die  of  hunger,  in  the  cold  and  darkness,  and  amidst  a  stillness  un- 
broken unless  by  his  own  cries  or  prayers. 

A  portion  of  those  subterraneous  apartments  were  closed  in  the 
present  century,  or  near  the  close  of  the  last,  as  was  plainly  discovered 
by  a  careful  examination  of  the  walls,  that  had  shut  them  in,  which 
h.'id  been  artificially  colored  with  a  grayish  hue,  to  make  them  look  old. 
1  his  artifice  was  accidental!}'  discovered. 

The  rubbish  having  been  removed  in  one  place,  indications  of  a 
stone  staircase  were  observed,  which  was  cleared,  and  persons  went 
down  thirty  steps.  At  the  bottom  was  found  a  small  chamber,  filled 
lip  with  a  mixture  of  earth  and  lime,  and  which  proved  to  l)e  but 
the  first  of  manj'  others  like  it.  The  prisons  of  Pope  Pius  V.  were 
now  at  last  discovered.  Along  the  walls  were  recesses,  hollowed 
out,  so  formed  and  arranged  as  to  bring  to  mind  the  ancient  Columbari 
or  dovecotes.  There,  it  appeared,  from  what  was  observed,  the  con- 
demned were  buried  alive,  being  immersed  in  a  kind  of  mortar  up  to 
their  necks.  In  some  instances  -it  was  evident,  they  had  died  slowly 
and  of  hunger.  This  was  inferred  from  the  position  of  the  bodies, 
which   i)eople,  in   great   numbers,  had   come  to  view   this  most   horrible 


43 

abode:  and  marks  were  seen  in  the  earth  of  movements  made  in  the 
conclusive  agonies  of  the  last  moments,  to  free  themselves  from  the 
tenacious  mortar,  vi^hile  it  was  closing  round  their  limbs.  The  bodies 
were  placed  in  lines,  opposite  each  other.  The  skulls  were  all  gone; 
but  these  were  afterwards  found  in  another  place. 

APPENDIX  A. 

Theod.  de  Niem.  Nemor  Unionis.     Labyrinthus  Tract  vi,  c  34. 

Nuper  ad  nostrum  pervenit  auditum,  quod  in  partibus  Frisiae  XXII 
Monasteria  Ordinis  S.  Benedictu  Bremensis,  Monasteriensis  et 
Trajectensis  dioeceseos  consistunt,  in  quibus  olim— tantummodo  moniales 
dicti  ordinis  degebant,  sed  successu  temporis  contigit,  quod  in  eisdem 
etiam  mares  ejusdem  professionis  in  magno — numero  qualitercunue 
cum — monialibus — degerent,  prout  degent  ad  proesens — in  quibus 
(monasteriis)  pene  omnis  religio  et  observentia  dicti  ordinis,  ac  Dei 
timor  abscessit,  libido  et  corruptio  carnis  interipsos  mares  et  moniales, 
necnon  alia  multa  mala,  excessus  et  vitia,  quae  pudor  est  effari,  per 
singlua  succreverunt — .  Fornicantur  etiam  quam  plures  hujusmodi 
monialiuni  cum  eisdem  sius  praelatis  monachis  et  conversis  et  iisdem 
monasteriis  plures  parturiunt  filios  et  filias. — Filios  atuem  in  monachos, 
et  filias  taliter  conceptas  quandoque  in  moniales  dictorum  monasterior- 
um  recipi  faciunt  et  procurant;  et  quod  miserandum  est,  nonnullae  ex 
hujusmondi  monialibus  materne  pietatis  oblitae,  ac  mala  malis  accumu- 
lando  aliquos  foetus  eorum  mortificant,  et  infantes  in  lucem  reditos 
trucidant  *  *  *  Insuper  quasi  singulre  moniales  hujusmodi  sinqulis 
monachis  et  conversis  *  *  *  ad  instar  ancillarum  seu  uxorum  *  * 
*  sternent  lectos,  lavant  etiam  eis  capita  et  pannos  *  *  *  nee  non 
decoquent  ipsis  cibaria  delicata,  as  die  noctuque  cum  ipsis  monachis  et 
conversis  in  comniessationibus  et  ebrietalibus  creberrimt  conservantur. 
Niem  Basil,   1566. 

(Nuns   and    Nunneries,   p.    184.) 

APPENDIX  B. 

Concilium  Moguntiacense.  X.  Ut  clericis  interdicatur,  mulieres 
in  domo  suo  habere,  omnimodis  decernimus.  Quamvis  enim  sacri 
canones  quasdam  personas  foemi — narum  simul  cum  clericis  in  una 
domo  habitare  permittant;  tamen,  quod  multum  dolendum  est,  saepe 
audivimus,  par  illam  consessionem  plurima  scelera  esse  commissa,  ita 
ut  quidam  sacerdotum  cum  propriis  soforibus  concugbentes,  filos  ex 
eis  generassent.  Et  idcirco  constituit  haec  sancta  sypodus,  ut  nuUus 
presbyter  ullam  foemimum  secum  in  domo  propri  permittat,  quantenus 
occasio  malde  suspicionis  vel  facti  Iriqui  penitus  auteratur. 

Sacrosanta    Concilia    Stud. 
P.   Labbei  et   G.   Cossart,   Venice   1728-32,   Tom   XI,   col.   586. 


I  HANDBOOK  I 

•!♦  OF  4 

y  Y 

|:  Politics    and  Economics  | 

y  y 

y  y 

X  Bv  THOS.  E.  WATSON  % 

y  y 

X  .  .  y 

%  "Political  and  Economic  Handbook"  cantaining  475  pages  *t* 

♦!♦  printed   well   on   excellent   book   paper  being  in   size   6x9   and  ,K 

y  covered  with  a  stiff  paper  cover.     The  frontis-piece  is  a  strik-  y 

X  ing  photograph  of  the  author.     His  preface  reads:  % 

*!*  *!* 

*j*  "In   order  that    Editors,   Speakers,   Lecturers   and    Voters  y 

♦*♦  might   have   in   the    convenient   storehouse   of   one   volume   all  X 

Y  the  scattered  information  contained  in  many;  and  in  order  that  ^ 

X  they   might    have   a   brief    statement   of    the    line   of   argument  X 

4»  vi'hich  w^e  adopt  upon  all  essential  issues,   I   have  written  this  X 

y  book.      I  liave  tried  to  fill  it  to  the  brim  with  facts — important  y 

X  facts,   undisputed   facts.     I    have   tried   to   make    it   an    armory  X 

♦!♦  from  which  reformers  can  draw  every  weapon  of  offence  and  A 

y  defense."     Thos.  E.  Watson,  Thomson,  Ga.,  November  1,  1915.  y 

y  Y 

•;♦  We   list   below   a    few   of   the   questions    discussed   by   the  .♦♦ 

y  author  to  give  you  some  idea  of  the  trend  of  the  book.  y 

?  .   .  % 

y  Planting    of    Democracy    in    Virgmia;    Slavery,    Religion;  .♦♦ 

X  The   Two    Political   Schools   of   Hamilton   and   Jefferson;    The  y 

♦*♦  Monroe  Doctrine;  A  Complete  Discussion  of  the  Money  Ques-  X 

♦{♦  tion:    The    Panics    of    1893    and    1907;    Railroads    and    Public  *^ 

X  Lands;  Pet  Banks;  Special  Privilege;  A  Chapter  on  Socialism;  X 

A  The  Federal  Judiciary;  The  Greenback  Party;  A  Great  Crime  X 

y  in    High    Finance;     Party    Platforms;    The     Roman     Catholic  y 

X  Church  in  American   Politics;   Looking   Backward;   About   the  X 

♦!♦  Peoples   Party;  Watson's   Speech,  etc.  A 

A  ORDER  NOW  X 

y  I 

X  PRICE  $1.50  DELIVERED  X 

t  '  X 

X  X 

:l  The  Tom  Watson  Book  I 

X  X 

I  Co.,  Inc.  I 

X  X 

?  THOMSON,  GEORGIA  ? 

y  y 

y  y 


4th  DEGREE 
OATH 


OF  THE  ? 


I  ^ 

A 

X 

A 
A 

^: 

I 

!  KNIGHTS  or  I 

I  COLUMBUS   I 

X  ji 

ji  (New  Print)                                             ^ 

♦♦♦  A 

*i  By  THOS.  E.  WATSON                               j^ 

♦t*  A 

A  Y 

T  A 

Y  A 

*4  The  demand  for  this  48  page  pamphlet  has  been     -^ 

Jt*  €o  great  that  we  have  printed  a  new  edition.       Mr.     :^ 

:^  Watson  in  this  booklet  proves  that  a  person  taking  this     I^: 

?  degree  is  guilty  of  treason  to  his  country  and  should     j> 

\  be  deported.     48  pages  of  dynamic  fire  against  the     Y 

X  Y 

'^  Hierarchy.                                                                                    % 


Price  35c,  Delivered 


THE  TOM  WATSON  BOOK  CO.  | 

?♦  THOMSON,  GEORGIA  I^I 


t 


I 

t 
By  Thos.  E.  Watson  ♦^ 


THE  HOUSE  OF  HAPSBURG 


|:      The  Latest  of  Mr.  Watson's  Historical  Works  States     >; 
X  Cause  of  Recent  European  War.  4 


X 


♦  t 

!|I  Shows   the   Origin   of   the   House   of   Hapsburg;  X 

X  The  Growth  of  the  Papal  Power  of  Rome.  j» 

^  John  Huss,  John  Wickliffe,  Martin  Luther,  the  Thirty  *^* 

X  Years  War  and  the  Reformation.  X 


:<  ILLUSTRATED— 96  Pages  i 


y.  Stiff  Paper  Cover;  Well  Printed;   Good  Type  ♦{♦ 


,:.  50  CENTS  POSTPAID                                        X 

i  TOM   WATSON   BOOK   CO.                         ? 

y  Thomson,    Georgia                                      i* 

X  Y 

X.  Y 


Watson's  "Prose  Miscellanies" 


'jl  This    handsome    volume    contains    twenty-height      *:] 

f      "fugitive   pieces"    which   have   been    selected    as    the     X 
X      cream  of  Mr.  Watson's  literary  writings. 


I 

f  If  you   would   have   your   order   filled   promptly,      X 

't*  .       .  .  fi 

X      mail  it  now.  with  one  dollar  accompanving.  *^ 


THE  TOM  WATSON  BOOK  CO. 


♦^  THOMSON,  GEORGIA  X 


X 


:t!    •  i 


A  Book  About  the  Socialists  and 


THE  TOM  WATSON  BOOK  CO, 


I  About  Socialism  | 

X  In   this   work,   Mr.   Watson   takes   up,   one   by   one  Y 

♦|  each  of  the  propositions  of  Karl  Marx,  and  discusses  ♦,♦ 

%  them  fully  and  fairly.  ♦!» 

Y  y 

X  He  also  analyses  the  great  book  of  Herr  Bebel,  the  Y 

♦t*  world-leader  of  Socialism,  "Woman  Under  Socialism."  ♦,; 

Y  X 
4  Mr.  Watson  cites  standard  historical  works  to  prove  .|. 
X  that  Bebel,  Marx  and  other  Socialist  leaders  are  alto-  :»: 
X  srether  wrong  about.  X 

X  ^             ^  ♦!♦ 

t  The   Origin   of   Property,  y 

Y  X 
X  The  rise  of  the  Marital  relation,  X 

Y  T 

?  The  Cause  of  the  inequality  of  Wealth,  etc.  X 

Y  A 


I  Mr.  Watson  demonstrates  that  Socialism — as  taught  *^ 

X  by  Marx.  Bebel,  LaSalle,  Engel,  etc.— would  annihi-  *^ 

i  late  X 

'|»  Individuality  and  personal  liberty,  y 


X  Home-life  as  we  know  it,  4 

y  The  White  Man's  Supremacy  over  the  inferior  races,  y^ 

X  't* 

*^  The  Marital  relation,  with  its  protection  to  women,  »!« 

X  and  finally  ♦!' 

X  RELIGION  OF  ALL  KINDS.  X 


I  Mr.  Watson  proves  that  SPECIAL  PRIVILEGE     | 

t      intrenched  in  law  and  in  government,  is  now,  and  al-      *^ 
%      ways  has  been,  the  Great  Enemy  of  the  Human  Race.      | 


?  PRICE  $1.00  DELIVERED  4 

4 


:<  THOMSON,  GEORGIA  A 


I  CThe  IDATSOniATl  I 

I  I 

I  DEDICATED                       | 

*»*  *!* 

X  TO  THE  IDEALS  ESPOUSED                         X 

t  t 

X  By                             5: 

y  y 

X  y 

♦!♦  THOMAS  E.  WATSON                               •*♦ 

y  y 

y  y 

X  X 

X  In    an    effort   to   build   a   monument   to   the    late      X 

X  X 

♦!♦  Senator  Thomas  E.  Watson  in  the  form  of  a  monthly.    *\* 

y  •     ,,                    y 

X  magazine  Ave  offer  you  "The  Watsonian."                          X 

X  X 

*l*  Its  policy  always  will  be  to  advocate  Jeffersonian      ♦*♦ 

X  and  Watsonian  principles  ;  "equal  rights  to  all — special      *:* 

X  privileges  to  none ;  "fight  for  America  and  Americans      X 

y  •                                                                                 y 

y  against  un-American   subjects."                                               Y 

y  y 

y  y 

X  As   a   result   the   WATSONIAN    offers   through     X 

y  •                                                                                       y 

y  its  columns  each  month  selected  writings  of  Mr.  Wat-      y 

X  son's,   editorials    on    all    current    issues,    a   condensed      X 

X  X 

♦!♦  report  on  all  the  important  news  of  the  month,  and      ♦*. 

y  y 

y  the  most  deadly  indictments  against  the  Roman  Cath-      y 

X  X 

X  olic  Hierarchy  that  can  be  found  today.                                X 

y  f 

y  y 

I  PRICE  $1.00  PER  YEAR                              | 

X  X 

I  THE    WATSONIAN        | 

X  A 

:|:  THOMSON,  GEORGIA                               Jl 

y  y 

y  y 

y  y 

y  y 


